Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 730 (MP)

Girish Kumar v. Ghanshyam

2019-10-16

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision No. 2364-1/16 and order dated 13.6.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue in case No.1/Review/Vidisha/LR/2018/0088. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that a committee constituted under the leadership of Revenue Inspector had submitted a report dated 7.5.1982 in which it was mentioned that survey No. 27 area 1.087 hectare, survey No. 34 area 2.049 hectare, survey No. 64 area 0.293 hectare and survey No. 66 area 0.575 hectare, total area 4.004 hectare were recorded in the name of Butaiya (dead), Phulla, Bera, Chunni, Seva and Halka S/o Butaiya. All these persons are the members of aboriginal tribe and now the above-mentioned land is in possession of Krishnagopal S/o Amarchand, who is not the member of aboriginal tribe. Accordingly, the proceeding under section 170-B of M.P. Land Revenue Code (in short "the Code") was initiated. The petitioners are the legal representatives of Krishnagopal. The proceedings under section 170- B of the Code was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Vidisha by order dated 17.8.2009. The respondents No. 1 to 17 filed an appeal against the order of the SDO, Vidisha. The Additional Collector, Vidisha by order dated 22.9.2015 passed in case No.7/Appeal/2012- 13 allowed the appeal and it was held that since the members of the aboriginal tribe were owner of the property in dispute and as the petitioners have failed to notify as to how they came in possession of the land belonging to the members of the aboriginal tribe, therefore, it was directed that the land be reverted back to the respondents No. 1 to 17. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, Vidisha, the petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by order dated 14.11.2017. An application for review was filed which too has been dismissed by order dated 13.6.2019. 4. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, Vidisha, the petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by order dated 14.11.2017. An application for review was filed which too has been dismissed by order dated 13.6.2019. 4. Challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the Additional Collector, Vidisha, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that by mistake the revision was filed directly before the Board of Revenue and in fact the revision was maintainable before the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, therefore, the Board of Revenue should not have entertained the revision, which was filed directly before it. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the question of title is involved in the present and, therefore, the revenue authorities had no right or power to direct for reversion of the land back to the respondents No. 1 to 17. The respondents No. 1 to 17 have failed to prove their title and, therefore, the orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as Board of Revenue are liable to be quashed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Section 170-B of the Code reads as under: "[170-B. Reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud.- (1) Every person who on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment), 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 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 subsection (6) of section 165 between the period commencing on the 2nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 shall, within [two years] of such commencement, notify to the Sub-Divisional Officer in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, all the information as to how he has come in possession of such land. (2) If any person fails to notify the information as required by subsection (1) within the period specified therein it shall be presumed that such person has been in possession of the agricultural land without any lawful authority and the agricultural land shall, on the expiration of the period aforesaid revert to the person to who it originally belonged and if that person be dead, to his legal heirs. [(2-A) If a Gram Sabha in the Scheduled area referred to in clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution finds that any person, other than a member of an aboriginal tribe, is in possession of any land of a bhumiswami belonging to an aboriginal tribe, without any lawful authority, it shall restore the possession of such land to that person to whom it originally belonged and if that person is dead to his legal heirs: Provided that if the Gram Sabha fails to restore the possession of such land, it shall refer the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who shall restore the possession of such land within three months from the date of receipt of the reference.] (3) On respect of the information under subsection (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be deemed necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate right he shall declare the transaction null and void and pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the transferor and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs.] [(3) On receipt of the information under sub-section (1) the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be necessary about all such transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate right he shall declare the transaction null and void and - (a) Where no building or structure has been erected on the agricultural land prior to such finding pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the transferer and if he be dead, in his legal heirs, (b) Where any building or structure has been erected on the agricultural land prior to such finding, he shall fix the price of such land in accordance with the principles laid down for fixation of price of land in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (No. 1 of 1894) and order the person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay to the transferor the difference, if any, between the price so fixed and the price actually paid to the transferor: Provided that where the building or structure has been erected after the 1st day of January, 1984, the provisions of clause (b) above shall not apply: Provided further that fixation of price under clause (b) shall be with reference to the price on the date of registration of the case before the SubDivisional Officer.]" 7. The provisions of section 170-B of the Code was challenged and it was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment passed in the case Dhirendra Nath Sharma v. State of M.P. and another reported in 1986 RN 106= 1986 JLJ 190 = 1985 MPLJ 786 . In view of the said judgment, it is clear that whether a person has given information under section 170-B (1) of M.P. Land Revenue Code or not, but still the authorities are required to conduct an enquiry into the matter before directing for reversion of the land back to the original owner, who is the member of an aboriginal tribe. 8. In the present case, the Additional Collector, Vidisha has given a specific finding that in the year 1959 the respondents No. 1 to 17 who are the members of the aboriginal tribe and their predecessor were in possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, they had become the occupancy tenants as per the provisions of section 185 of the Code and consequently, they have become Bhumiswami as per the provisions of section 190 of the Code and the petitioners or their predecessor in title have failed to point out as to how they came in possession of the land belonging to the members of the aboriginal tribe and accordingly, in view of the provisions of section 170-B of the Code the Additional Collector had directed for reversion of land back to the respondents No. 1 to 17. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the burden is on the respondents No. 1 to 17 to prove that they were the owner and in possession of the land in dispute is misconceived. From the plain reading of section 170-B (1) of the Code, it is clear that the said provision casts a duty upon the person, who is in possession of the land belonging to the member of the aboriginal tribe. Admittedly, the predecessor in title of the petitioners are not the members of the aboriginal tribe, therefore, they were under obligation to explain as to how they came in possession of the land belonging to the members of the aboriginal tribe. Admittedly, the predecessor in title of the petitioners are not the members of the aboriginal tribe, therefore, they were under obligation to explain as to how they came in possession of the land belonging to the members of the aboriginal tribe. In view of the provisions of section 170-B (1) of the Code, it is clear that as the petitioners have failed to prove their title over the land in dispute and they have failed to prove as to how they came in possession of the land belonging to the members of the aboriginal tribe, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the authorities did not commit any mistake by placing the burden of proof upon the petitioners to show as to how they came in possession of the land belonging to the members of the aboriginal tribe. It is also fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that after the Revenue Code came into force, no application was filed for restoration of the land. In absence of any application for restoration, it is clear that in view of the provisions of section 185 of the Code, the members of the aboriginal tribe became the occupancy tenants and in view of section 190 of the Code, they became Bhumiswami and thus, it was for the petitioners to explain that as to how they came in possession of the land belonging to the members of the aboriginal tribe. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that neither before the authorities nor before this Court he has filed any document to show title of the petitioners. Even otherwise, except the orders of the authorities, no other document has been filed to show title of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Additional Collector, Vidisha as well as the Board of Revenue did not commit any mistake in directing for reversion of the land back to Butaiya or his legal representatives. 9. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. .....................