Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 226 (CHH)

DHAMTARIA @ LAXMAN v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-08-05

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2013
ORDER 1. The instant petition arises from the order dated 21-1-2002 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, in case No. 1131 A-23 year 2000-01 whereunder the order dated 13-6-2001 (Annexure - P/9) passed by the Additional Collector, Gariyaband was set aside and the order dated 24-11-1999 (Annexure - P/8) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gariyaband (for short "the SDO") was restored with a direction to ensure handing over of the land in question to the legal representatives of the original respondent No.4. 2. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is in two folds. Firstly, the land in question was purchased before the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code") came into existence and, as such, the provisions of Section 170-B, which was brought into the statute book by amendment in the year 1980, is not applicable. Secondly, an enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 170-B of the Code has not been conducted in accordance with the requirement. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the land was admittedly purchased prior to 2-10-1959. The SDO has not conducted enquiry, however, on the basis of a report submitted by the Patwari, which contains the deposition of the sellers, who were admittedly aboriginal tribes, came to the conclusion that the land was obtained fraudulently. It was recorded by the SDO that no sale deed was produced to support the contention of the petitioner that the same was purchased properly in accordance with law from the original respondent No.4. Thus, the entire proceedings is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the original respondent No.4 submits that the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code does not contemplate the period for sale, but only possession. If a person is in possession of land between 2-10-1959 to 24-10-1980 the owner has to justify his possession, if the land ever belonged to the aboriginal tribe. Proper enquiry was conducted, as Patwari after examining the depositions of the persons concerned and others submitted a report. On the basis of the same, the SDO had come to the conclusion that the land in question had come to the possession of the petitioner, not by way of proper sale deed, but fraudulently. 5. I have examined the submissions advanced by the parties and also the documents annexed thereto. On the basis of the same, the SDO had come to the conclusion that the land in question had come to the possession of the petitioner, not by way of proper sale deed, but fraudulently. 5. I have examined the submissions advanced by the parties and also the documents annexed thereto. On perusal of the receipt, it is found that nothing has been stated in respect of sale of the land in question except that some payment was received by the ancestors of the respondent No.4, but in what respect the payment was made, has not been indicated in the receipts. Indisputably, no other document, may be unregistered, indicating transfer of sale, has been produced. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the SDO. 6. So far as question of applicability of the provisions of Section 170B of the Code to the transaction prior to 2-10-1959 is concerned, the issue has already been considered by this Court at length in Basanti & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others WP No. 1827 of 2002 (decided on 15-4-2003) and observed as under: "6. Under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959, the first requirement is that every person who, on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980, is in possession of agricultural land which belonged to a member of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of Section 165 from the commencement of the Act, till the amendment came into force shall notify the Sub-Divisional Officer within a period of two years in respect of his possession whether it was legal or not. Thus there are two issues which are to be examined by the Sub-Divisional Officer in examination under subsection 3 of the Code, 1959; firstly, whether the land has been obtained from aboriginal tribe lawfully and secondly, whether the person from whom the transfer has been made belongs to aboriginal tribe." 7. On bare perusal of Section 170-B of the Code, it is manifest that in respect of the period purchase is not important, the relevant is possession as to whether the petitioner was in possession of the land in question from the date of enforcement of the Code i.e. 2-10-1959 and the date of amendment is 24-10-1980. On bare perusal of Section 170-B of the Code, it is manifest that in respect of the period purchase is not important, the relevant is possession as to whether the petitioner was in possession of the land in question from the date of enforcement of the Code i.e. 2-10-1959 and the date of amendment is 24-10-1980. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that since the land in question was purchased prior to 2-10-1959, the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code would not be applicable, is unsustainable. Indisputably, the petitioner was in possession of the land in question during the period, which is relevant for the purpose of enquiry and order under Section 170-B of the Code. 8. The petitioner has produced one document, annexed as Annexure-P/2, which indicates only the payment of Rs.50/- and the second receipt dated 30-1-1945 shows balance payment in installments. The petitioner has not produced any other document indicating transfer of land in question or sale of the same except receipt of some payment, which does not indicate whether the payment was made in lieu of sale of the property in question. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.