BHAIJI Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFCER THANDLA
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on
December 16,2002
BHAIJI
Appellant
VERSUS
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,THANDLA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GIRDHARI LAL AND SONS VS. BALBIR NATH MATHUR [REFERRED TO]DHIRENDRA NATH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ATMARAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-11-51] [REFERRED TO]HEMLAL SAHU VS. SONAMATI [LAWS(CHH)-2021-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYADHAR PANDURANG RANE VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2004-9-152] [REFERRED TO]
NISHIKANT SUKERKAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-176] [REFERRED TO]
BXIN OFFICE PARKS INDIA PVT. LTD VS. KAILASA URJA PVT. LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
HARKAISH P.BHADORIA VS. UNION OF INDIA THRO MINISTRY OF FINANCE [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-137] [REFERRED TO]
DEBDAS BANERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
G RAJABABU VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2007-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CSEB BILASPUR DIVISION VS. PUBLIC UTILITY PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, BILASPUR [LAWS(CHH)-2011-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA RAM VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-9-124] [REFERRED TO]
KAY KAY EMBROIDERIES PVT LTD VS. CLOTH MARKETS AND SHOPS BOARD [LAWS(BOM)-2006-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ SARA LEE LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) INT LTU [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
V NARASIMHA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-2012-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2014-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARANA PARTAP CHARITABLE TRUST VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARANARAYANA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BHOGILAL PATEL VS. LEITZ TOOLING SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-6-345] [REFERRED TO]
Ojas Industries P LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2005-12-102] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH RAI BAREJA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE OF AMARAMUNDA GOVT PRIMARY SCHOOL VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2021-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
B K PAVITRA AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(SC)-2019-5-66] [REFERRED TO]
SIBRI BAI VS. LAJHRU [LAWS(CHH)-2020-5-77] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2009-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
Southern Railways VS. S Palaniappan [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-153] [REFERRED TO]
OMANAJOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
M/S PANKAJ HOTEL VS. BAL MUKUND [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA SARKI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-3-155] [REFERRED TO]
SAJEDA KHATOON VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2012-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVILAS BAJAJ VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. P. RAMESH [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR AGARWALA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
NASSAR SYIEM JAHNOH VS. KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
N S PREMALEELAMMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
B PREMANAND VS. MOHAN KOIKAL [LAWS(SC)-2011-3-100] [RELIED UPON [PARA 23] 12.]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – III VS. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
A MANJULA BHASHINI VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR A P WOMENS COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. RAM BUILDERS [LAWS(MPH)-2009-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU DARBARI VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN [LAWS(CA)-2014-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVILAS BAJAJ VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
PROGRESSIVE CAREER ACADEMY PVT LTD VS. FIIT JEE LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-66] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG AGARWAL VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
PEMA VS. GALIYA [LAWS(MPH)-2003-8-46] [FOLLOWED ON]
SWARAN DASS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2009-11-83] [REFERRED]
HYDERABAD CO OPERATIVE TRADING SOCIETY LTD VS. AUTHORITY UNDER A P SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT 1988 [LAWS(APH)-2004-1-85] [REFERRED TO]
ENVORMENT PROTECTION TRAIINING AND SEARCH INSTITUTE VS. P B B NARSHIMHA RAO P KALESHWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2006-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDEV S/O BADHANSAY VS. AMRIT S/O GANJHU [LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU SPINNING MILLS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-422] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-3-139] [REFERRED]
MOHAN MAHAVAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2008-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
Indore Development Authority VS. Shri Ram Builders [LAWS(MPH)-2009-4-135] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MEGH)-2014-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHUDAS DAMODAR KOTECHA VS. MANHABALA JERAM DAMODAR [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAS KUMAR DEB VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-5-52] [REFERRED]
BHUWALKA STEEL INDUS LTD VS. BOMBAY IRON AND STEEL LABOUR BD [LAWS(SC)-2009-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
CITIZENS FORUM FOR MANGALORE DEVELOPMENT VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
GULAB KHATRI VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2003-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA RAJYA MATHADI TRANSPORT AND GENERAL KAMGAR UNION VS. GROCERY MARKETS AND SHOPS LABOUR BOARD [LAWS(BOM)-2006-8-95] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK JAIN VS. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-2011-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
CITIZENS WELFARE SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA, REP. [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
NATWARSINH BADARSINH RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-275] [REFERRED TO]
SHEKHAR BHUSHAN NAG VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA DEVI AND ANR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2009-12-100] [REFERRED]
MOHAMMED BASHEER K P VS. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(KER)-2010-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
TRICOLOR HOTELS LIMITED VS. DINESH JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-252] [REFERRED TO]
AMINA BHARATRAM VS. SUMANT BHARATRAM AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
JEEVAN VS. JAINBAI [LAWS(CHH)-2022-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
DHANAJIRAM VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR [LAWS(CHH)-2014-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
OMPRAKASH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-207] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KARIMAN TIRKI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-141] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P VEMA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2007-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUKHA SUNDARAM PILLAI S. VS. MEENACHIL RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(KER)-2022-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (Act no. 20 of 1959) was enacted by the legislative assembly of Madhya Pradesh to consolidate and amend the law relating to land revenue, the powers of revenue officers, rights and liabilities of holders of land from the state government, agriculture tenures and other matters relating to land and the liabilities incidental thereto in madhya Pradesh. There were different laws relating to land revenue, land tenure and other matters touching thereto prevalent in the different regions of the state and the legislature considered it desirable that there should be one uniform law enacted for whole of the state. There are tribal land holders in many regions of the state of madhya Pradesh. The Code took care to enact some special provisions taking special care of protecting the interest of such tribals.
(2.)In the year 1980, the state legislature enacted the Madhya Pradesh Land revenue Code (Amendment) Act 1980 (Act no. 59 of 1980) whereby certain amendments were incorporated and a few new provisions were inserted into the body of the Code. One such amendment is the insertion of section 170-B which read as under: -
"170-B.reversion of land of member 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) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment act of 1980) is in possession of agricultural land which belonging to a member of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe 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 of 1980 shall, within one year 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 sub-section (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 whom it originally belonged and if that person be dead, to his legal heirs; (3) On receipt 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 be he dead, in his legal heirs. "subsequently, there have been a few changes incorporated in the text of section 170-B abovesaid. For example, the period of one year specified in sub-section (1) of section 170-B later on came to be enlarged to one and a half years and then to two years as it now stands. Similarly, subsection (3) has been recast by virtue of notification no. 1-70-VII-N-2-83 dated 5th january 1984 issued under sub-paragraph 1 of paragraph 5 of the fifth schedule to the constitution of India which amendment we are ignoring for the purpose of this judgment as the language of the essential part of the sub-Section (3) remains as before and what has been amended is the consequential direction required to be made where certain buildings or structures have come up on the land forming subject matter of enquiry under sub-Section (3). However, sub-section (2-A) was inserted between sub-section (2) and (3) by Act no. 1 of 1998 passed by the state legislature which reads as under:-
"(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.)The land forming subject matter of these proceedings was owned by Bhikala and thanwaria who are members of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165 of the Code as contemplated by section - 170-B (. 1). The appellant too claims to be a similar aboriginal tribal. It appears that the land was sold by the aboriginal tribal bhumiswamis through registered sale deeds and it came to be purchased by the appellant. All these transactions have taken place between 2nd October 1959 and the date of the commencement of the amendment Act of 1980, meaning thereby, during the period attracting applicability of section 170-8 (1). The appellant did not furnish the information in the form and in the manner prescribed within the period of two years. In the year 1982-83, the sub- divisional officer, Thandla Petlawad, distt. Jhabua, within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, initiated proceedings under section 170-B of the Code by calling upon the appellant to show cause in response to the notice issued by the SDO. Soon on service of the notice the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya pradesh submitting that the appellant and the vendor bhumiswamis, both being aboriginal tribals notified under section 165 (6) of the Code, the applicability of section 170-B was not attracted and therefore the notice issued by the SDO was illegal, uncalled for and without any authority in law. The challenge has been rejected by the High Court.
(2.)In the year 1980, the state legislature enacted the Madhya Pradesh Land revenue Code (Amendment) Act 1980 (Act no. 59 of 1980) whereby certain amendments were incorporated and a few new provisions were inserted into the body of the Code. One such amendment is the insertion of section 170-B which read as under: -
"170-B.reversion of land of member 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) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment act of 1980) is in possession of agricultural land which belonging to a member of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe 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 of 1980 shall, within one year 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 sub-section (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 whom it originally belonged and if that person be dead, to his legal heirs; (3) On receipt 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 be he dead, in his legal heirs. "subsequently, there have been a few changes incorporated in the text of section 170-B abovesaid. For example, the period of one year specified in sub-section (1) of section 170-B later on came to be enlarged to one and a half years and then to two years as it now stands. Similarly, subsection (3) has been recast by virtue of notification no. 1-70-VII-N-2-83 dated 5th january 1984 issued under sub-paragraph 1 of paragraph 5 of the fifth schedule to the constitution of India which amendment we are ignoring for the purpose of this judgment as the language of the essential part of the sub-Section (3) remains as before and what has been amended is the consequential direction required to be made where certain buildings or structures have come up on the land forming subject matter of enquiry under sub-Section (3). However, sub-section (2-A) was inserted between sub-section (2) and (3) by Act no. 1 of 1998 passed by the state legislature which reads as under:-
"(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.)The land forming subject matter of these proceedings was owned by Bhikala and thanwaria who are members of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165 of the Code as contemplated by section - 170-B (. 1). The appellant too claims to be a similar aboriginal tribal. It appears that the land was sold by the aboriginal tribal bhumiswamis through registered sale deeds and it came to be purchased by the appellant. All these transactions have taken place between 2nd October 1959 and the date of the commencement of the amendment Act of 1980, meaning thereby, during the period attracting applicability of section 170-8 (1). The appellant did not furnish the information in the form and in the manner prescribed within the period of two years. In the year 1982-83, the sub- divisional officer, Thandla Petlawad, distt. Jhabua, within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, initiated proceedings under section 170-B of the Code by calling upon the appellant to show cause in response to the notice issued by the SDO. Soon on service of the notice the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya pradesh submitting that the appellant and the vendor bhumiswamis, both being aboriginal tribals notified under section 165 (6) of the Code, the applicability of section 170-B was not attracted and therefore the notice issued by the SDO was illegal, uncalled for and without any authority in law. The challenge has been rejected by the High Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.