AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The admitted facts were that the plaintiff, Dhaniram was non- aboriginal tribe and seller, Pooran Singh was aboriginal tribe. By order dated 05.06.1985, passed in Revenue Case No. 11-A/23/ 84-85, the Collector has directed the plaintiff to hand over the possession to the father of the defendant No.1, Beniram. The case as was pleaded by the plaintiff was that the plaintiff on 08.10.1964 had purchased Kh.No.69/2, 69/5, new No. 242, 69/9, 69/12 new No.259, 69/15 new No. 292, 69/16 new No. 253, 69/23 new no. 239 total admeasuring 5.36 acres and came into possession. It was the that Beniram, the seller was the aboriginal tribe and Dhaniram, the purchaser was non-aboriginal tribe, therefore, the permission was obtained from the Collector before purchase of said land. In the year 1980, new provisions were added to Section 170B, in the Land Revenue Code w.e.f. 24.10.1980, which postulates that within two years of such commencement of the statute, the persons who is in possession of the land was to inform SDO and notify how he has came into possession in such land. Pursuant to that on 14.10.1981, a report was submitted by a Committee, that transaction entered in between Beniram and D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lower appellate Court was justified in declaring order dated 05.06.85 passed by the Collector, Durg in Revenue Case No.11-A/23 year 1984-85 under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code'), null and void, in the light of clauses (I) & (I-1) of Section 257 of the Code?" 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff had availed his remedy under Land Revenue Code. It is contended that against the order of the Collector, which was challenged, the appeal was preferred and subsequently, the revision was also preferred. He would further submit that the issue went up to the level of Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 04.02.1992 confirmed the finding of the Collector. Thereafter, the civil suit was instituted on 18.06.1992. He would further submit that having availed one remedy, Section 257 of the land Revenue Code bars remedy of civil suit. He would further submit that Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code if it is read as a whole, it will cover any order passed under the Land Revenue and if certain orders have passed, the same can not be assailed again by way of civil suit. He would further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x.P-10, which was passed ex-parte, restored the land back to Beniram, the seller and the orders were passed U/s 170B of the Land Revenue Code. The order sheet of the appellate authority i.e. the Collector is marked as Ex. P-9. The entire order sheet do not show or suggest that any enquiry was made before passing such order. The order sheet records that on 10.12.1984 the ex-parte proceedings were drawn and it was closed for orders. Subsequently, the order was passed. The order of Collector dated 05.06.1985 was further challenged by Dhaniram, the purchaser, before the Additional Commissioner, in Revenue Case No. 42/A-23/85-86. The Additional Commissioner vide its order dated 11.06.1986, affirmed the order of the Collector and Beniram the seller was placed in possession of the land, pursuant to the order Ex. D/8 on 19.07.1986. Against the order of Collector, second appeal was filed which was dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner. The order of the Commissioner was further assailed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. No. 367/87 and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by its order dated 16.02.1987, dismissed the petition filed by Dhaniram. The challenge in first round of litigatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 receipt of information under sub-section (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 transferer and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs.] [(3) On receipt of information under sub-section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbers of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud. This provision has been inserted by M.P. Amendment Act No. 15 of 1980 (24.10.1980). By this similar provision, further rights are protected of aboriginal tribes who have been declared so under sub-section (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. Any person who is in possession of the agricultural land which belonged to a member of a scheduled tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe, shall, within two years of such commencement, notify to the SDO 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. If any person fails to notify the information, 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 whom it originally belonged and if that person is dead, to his legal heirs. Sub-Section (3) of Section 170-B provides that on receipt of the information under sub-section (1), the SDO shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut any lawful authority. Therefore the word presumption is rebutable and it has not been the intension of the Legislature that the person shall be exclusively held to be in possession without any lawful authority. So it would always be open to place such presumption by way of any evidence. With respect to the jurisdiction of the civil Court, there is always a strong presumption that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide all questions of civil nature. The exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court is, therefore, not readily to be inferred and such exclusion either must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. 22. Facts as would be relevant that initially by order dated 20.07.1984 in Revenue Case No.236A/23 year 1983-84 at presence of both Beniram and Dhaniram the application of Dhaniram to get back the land was dismissed. On appeal being filed the order of Collector dated 05.06.1985 was passed by Collector. Perusal of both the order of SDO and Collector would reveal no enquiry was conducted as required under Section 170-B of Land Revenue Code. So only on the basis of appeal memo the Collector came to finding the sole consideration of land was lower than the prevailing marke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit. (vii) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply. 24. The same principles are again enunciated by the Apex Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Munjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (dead) by Lrs and others, (2000) 3 SCC 689 wherein the decision of Dhulabai (supra) has been noticed. Para 5 of the said decision which is relevant, reads thus : 5. The normal rule of law is that civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must be in favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Courts to try a civil suit. The test adopted in examining such a question is (I) whether the legislative intent to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implicatio....