MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.)By this petition, under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 13/08/2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur whereby the order passed by the Collector in the year 1995 has been reversed and order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer on 17/06/1994 has been affirmed directing return of land under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code.
(2.)Facts necessary for decision of the controversy involved in the petition are that one Smt. Rupautin Bai, widow of Samaru, sold her land admeasuring 2.52 acres situated in khasra no.16/1, Village - Hathidob, Tahsil - Kawardha to one Roop Singh, father of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 31/08/1967 after getting permission for sale vide order dated 25/08/1967 of the Collector - Durg in exercise of powers under Section 165 (6) of the Land Revenue Code. Rupautin Bai, during her life time, did not raise any dispute in the matter nor re- claimed possession nor raised any allegation of she having been defrauded of any of her legitimate right. After the death of Rupautin, sometimes in the year 1994, it was informed by the Patwari of the concerned area that there is no information of the said sale transaction on record by the purchaser and therefore, he reported the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Taking cognizance of the said report, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Kawardha initiated enquiry under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code and passed an order on 17/06/1994 directing return of land in favour of respondent No.5, son of Rupautin, the original vendor. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector which was eventually allowed vide order dated 09/03/1995. Aggrieved by the said order, revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner was successfully invoked by respondent No.5 - Shatrughan Singh. The Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and affirmed the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer directing return of the land. It is this order, which is under challenge.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner focused his submission on two issues. Firstly, even prior to coming into force of provisions contained in Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code, legality and validity of the sale transaction was challenged by Shatrughan Singh by filing Civil Suit and the Trial Court dismissed the Suit vide judgment decree dated 12/02/1980. As the matter was already adjudicated upon by the Court of law, which had competence and jurisdiction to decide the issue at the time when the suit was filed and the judgment was passed, it could not be nullified merely because there was an amendment and insertion of Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code. The disputes which were already concluded under a judicial order could not be allowed to be reopened in a subsequent proceedings under the law particularly, when the enquiry was centered on the allegations of fraud.
Secondly, it is contended that even if it is assumed that the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to invoke powers under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code, in the absence of there being any material much less finding that the deceased, original vendor - Rupautin Bai was defrauded of her legitimate rights, no order of return of land could be passed only on the ground of petitioner failing to inform the authority of such acquisition of land within a period of two years from the date of insertion of Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaiji v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla and ors., 2003 (1) SCC 692 and Atmaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1995 MPLJ 633.