A registered sale deed does not bar Section 170-B inquiry into non-tribal possession.

Survey No. 665/1, admeasuring 0.29 acres at Village Naya Baradwar, was originally recorded in the name of Latiram and thereafter in the name of his son, Dhaniram. Dhaniram executed a registered sale deed dated 23 May 1979 in favour of Firtu Ram, a member of an Aboriginal Tribe. After Firtu Ram’s death, the land was recorded in the name of Gokul Ram and subsequently in the names of the present appellants, who claimed through him

Janki Bai initiated proceedings under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, alleging that the land, despite being recorded in the name of tribal persons, was actually possessed and enjoyed by Lakhanlal Rathore, a non-tribal. The Sub-Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry, obtained a Patwari’s report, issued notices, and recorded statements of the parties and witnesses

By order dated 30 March 1998, the SDO directed reversion of the land in favour of a member of the Aboriginal Tribe

On appeal, the Collector set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Upon remand, the SDO again directed reversion on 11 February 2003. The Collector and Commissioner affirmed the order on 3 March 2004 and 30 November 2009, respectively. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability

The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 20 March 2024, leading to the present writ appeal

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to interfere with the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities directing reversion of the land under Section 170-B of the Code, 1959?

2. Whether the revenue authorities could examine the actual possession, enjoyment, and surrounding circumstances of the land notwithstanding the existence of a registered sale deed in favour of a tribal person?

3. Whether Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, or the decision in Urmila Devi v. Vikas Kumar Agrawal , barred or invalidated the statutory enquiry under Section 170-B?

Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is a protective provision intended to identify and restore land belonging to members of Aboriginal Tribes where, in substance, the land has been transferred, possessed, or enjoyed by persons not entitled to hold it.

Relying on Bhaiji v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla , (2003) 1 SCC 692, the Court held that the enquiry is directed at the real nature and consequences of the transaction and is not confined to direct transfers from a tribal to a non-tribal; even a transaction apparently made between tribal persons may be examined

A registered sale deed and revenue entry are relevant evidence but do not, by themselves, preclude an enquiry into actual possession and enjoyment under Section 170-B

The principle in Khora v. Mohar Sai and Urmila Devi —that revenue authorities cannot finally adjudicate complex questions of title or declare a registered transaction fraudulent or benami in a summary proceeding—was distinguished as applying to a materially different situation involving annulment of the registered transaction itself

Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, could not be invoked to nullify the special statutory enquiry under Section 170-B

The Court found that the Section 170-B proceedings were conducted through a proper statutory enquiry: the SDO obtained the Patwari’s report, issued notices, recorded statements, and reconsidered the matter after remand. The findings were subsequently affirmed by the Collector and Commissioner

The authorities did not rely solely on an oral allegation or disregard the registered sale deed; instead, they considered the surrounding circumstances, including evidence regarding the timing of construction, the electricity connection obtained in 1997, property-tax payments from 1997, and witness statements indicating that the property was actually possessed and enjoyed by Lakhanlal Rathore, a non-tribal

These circumstances were relevant to determining possession and enjoyment, although they did not independently confer title

The Court held that Urmila Devi did not apply because the present case involved an enquiry into effective possession and enjoyment under Section 170-B, rather than a summary declaration invalidating or annulling a registered transaction

Since the appellants failed to establish perversity, jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or manifest illegality, appellate and writ interference was unwarranted

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20 March 2024, along with the orders of the SDO dated 11 February 2003, the Collector dated 3 March 2004, and the Commissioner dated 30 November 2009, was affirmed. There was no order as to costs