Shivraj S/o Shri Ramprasad Gond Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Gattasilli Tahsil v. 1. Sukaro Bai W/o Charan Singh Gond Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Amdi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 557 of 2014 Shivraj S/o Shri Ramprasad Gond Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Gattasilli Tahsil Nagri Distt. Dhamtari C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sukaro Bai W/o Charan Singh Gond Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Amdi Sankra Tahsil Nagri Distt. Dhamtari C.G. , Chhattisgarh 2. The Sub Divisional Officer Nagri Distt. Dhamtari C.G. , District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari C.G., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4. Commissioner, Raipur, Division, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent No. 1 For State/Respondents No. 2 to 4
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22. 01.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Collector, Dhamtari dated 23.11.2011 and the order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division dated 23.06.2014, whereby the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were dismissed. 2 2. The facts of the present case are that the subject property bearing survey No. 48/1, ad-measuring 6.18 acres situated at village Gattasilli, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari was recorded in the name of Kaliram. He executed a registered sale-deed in favour of Shivraj/petitioner on 30.01.1973 for a consideration of Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner belongs to the “Gond” community and the property was purchased by a member of the “Gond” community. It is further stated that after the death of Kaliram, his distant relative moved an application under Section 170B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as “Code, 1959”) before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri, District Dhamtari for reversal of the land inter alia on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to the “Scheduled Tribe” category; particularly, the ‘Gond’ caste and the transaction is a forged one. Respondent No. 1 represented herself as a distant relative and adopted the daughter of Late Kaliram. The parties led their evidence and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri vide order dated 04.06.2011 dismissed the application moved by respondent No. 1 inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 1, namely, Sukaro Bai could not prove that she is the adopted daughter of Late Kaliram. It is also held that there is a transaction between the same communities; therefore, the provisions of Section 170B of the Code, 1959 would not attract. 3. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Dhamtari, and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.11.2011. The petitioner herein preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Division Raipur and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23. 06.2014. 4. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by Late Kaliram on 30.01.1973. He would further submit that during his 3 lifetime, Late Kaliram never raised any dispute. He would also submit that after the death of Kaliram, respondent No. 1/Sukaro Bai represented herself as the adopted daughter of Late Kaliram and filed an application under Section 170B of the Code, 1959. It is contended that respondent No. 1 could not prove herself as the adopted daughter of Late Kaliram and she is not the legal heir of Late Kaliram; therefore, the application moved by respondent No. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri was not maintainable at all. It is further contended that the Additional Collector, Dhamtari, as well as the Commissioner, Division Raipur, committed an error of law in reversing the well reasoned findings recorded by Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri. He would pray to allow the instant petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner does not belong to the ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category. He would further submit that the petitioner could not adduce clinching evidence to prove his caste. He would also submit that Sukaro Bai was adopted by Late Kaliram and being the legal heir, she had the right to move an application under Section 170B of the Code, 1959. It is contended that the Additional Collector, Dhamtari, as well as the Commissioner, Raipur Division, has recorded a concurrent finding with regard to the caste of the petitioner. It is further contended that a report was called from the State of Uttar Pradesh from where the petitioner hails and it was found that he does not belong to the “Scheduled Tribe” community. It is stated that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Dhamtari and the 4 Commissioner, Division Raipur. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. With regard to the caste of the petitioner, neither the Additional Collector nor the Commissioner has the authority to enquire rather the power is vested with the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In the present case, on the basis of a document called from the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Additional Collector, as well as the Commissioner, recorded a finding that the petitioner does not belong to the “Scheduled Tribes” community; such a finding recorded by the authorities is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of the law. 9. Respondent No. 1 has moved an application under Section 170B of the Code, 1959 representing herself as the adopted daughter of Late Kaliram, but she could not adduce evidence to prove this fact. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri has recorded a categorical finding in this regard. The learned Additional Collector, Dhamtari as well as the Commissioner, Raipur Division has not assigned any good reason to reverse the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri in this regard. 10. According to Section 170B (2) of the Code, 1959, if any person fails to notify the information as required within a period of 2 years, the land shall revert to whom it originally belonged and if that person is dead, to his legal heirs. The person claiming the right over the property of the Tribe has to prove that he or she is the legal heir of the aboriginal tribe. 11. In the present case, respondent No. 1 could not prove that she is the legal heir of the deceased Late Kaliram. The adoption as pleaded by respondent No. 1 could not be proved by adducing evidence with regard to custom etc. 5 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the Additional Collector, Dhamtari as well as the Commissioner, Division Raipur committed an error of law in reversing the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nagri dated 04.06.2011. Consequently, the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Dhamtari dated 23.11.2011 and the Commissioner, Division Raipur dated 23.06.2014 are hereby set-aside and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue), Nagri dated 04.06.2011 is restored. 13. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. d Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant