I^i_T_HE_,H.IGH_CqUKP_,OF:_,JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHH^TTISGARH v. RESPONDB2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH. BILASPUR (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J) W.P. No.2323/2004 PET8TIONER Shobhit Ram RESPONDENTS Vs

State of Chhattisgarh 2. Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Kharsiya 3. Additional Collector, Raigarh 4. Board of Revenue 5. Bhagwati Bai Present: Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Raksha Awasthy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (13.02.2013) 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to invoke supen/isory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 08.04.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue, a tribunal subordinate to the High Court, in Revenue Case No.43/A-23/03-04 affirming the order dated 10.9.1999 passed by the Upper Collector, Raigarh in Appeal Case No.361/A-23/1998-99 and the order dated 22.1.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kharisya in Revenue Case No.6/A-23/98-99. The Board of Revenue vide order impugned has ordered for reversal of the land under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') and also directed the Collector to take appropriate steps for criminal prosecution against the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without providing opportunity and examination of the record the revenue authorities below have held that the petitioner does not belong to Gadwa caste but belongs to Ganda caste, that is to say, he is member of Scheduled Caste and not the Scheduled Tribe, and thereby committed illegality. He further submits that the Board of Revenue is not empowered to issue direction to the Collector for criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that complete opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. writ petition the petitioner has shown himself as member of community and not of Gadwa and by showing himself as 'Gadwa' In the 'Ganda' i.e. a Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner succeeded in execution of sale deed in his favour without obtaining permission under Section 165 (6) of the Code which transaction was a fraudulent itself to establish the fact is sufficient transaction. Therefore by passing the order of reversal of land and for ..^' •^^E^ Page 2 of2 W.P. No.2323/04 criminal prosecution, illegalityo the revenue authorities have not committed any 5« Perusai of the orders impugned shows that opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner succeeded in execution of sale deed in his favour showing himself as 'Gadwa' i.e. member of Scheduled Tribe, but as per description in the petition and other documents the petitioner is not the member of Schedule Tribe as he has shown himself as 'Ganda' i.e. member of Schedule Caste. it was incumbent upon the In these circumstances, to purchase the land in question after obtaining necessary petitioner permission from the Collector as required under Section 165 (6) of the Code, but by showing himself as member of Scheduled Tribe i.e. Gadwa, he succeeded in execution of sale deed which itself is sufficient to establish that transaction was fraudulent in nature.

As regards the direction for criminal prosecution is concerned, every citizen is entitled to inform the police for cognizable offence under Section 154 of Therefore by directing for criminal prosecution in respect of Cr.P.C. the Board of Revenue has not commission of a cognizable offence, committed illegality requiring any interference.

Certified copy as per rules. T.P. Sharma Judge K