Land Registry Dispute: The Bilaspur-based Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant verdict in a case concerning tribal land. The Court ruled that an inquiry cannot be halted merely because the registered sale deed for the land is in the name of a tribal individual. If actual possession or use of the land is found to be with a non-tribal person, revenue officials are authorized to investigate the matter.
The Court stated that the primary objective of Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is to protect tribal land from possession and use by individuals not legally entitled to it. Upholding the Single Bench’s order dated March 20, 2024, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders passed by the SDM, Collector, and Commissioner courts.
Chhattisgarh High Court: Details of the Case
The case pertains to a 0.29-acre plot of land (Survey No. 665/1) in village Naya Baradwar. The land was originally recorded in the name of Latiram and subsequently in the name of his son, Dhaniram. On May 23, 1979, Dhaniram transferred the land to Phirtu Ram—a member of the tribal community—via a registered sale deed for a sum of ₹5,000. Following Phirtu Ram’s death, the land was recorded in the name of Gokul Ram; later, his legal heirs became the appellants in this matter.
Complaint Regarding Non-Tribal Possession
Janki Bai filed a complaint under Section 170-B, alleging that despite the land being recorded in the name of a tribal family in revenue records, actual possession and use lay with a non-tribal individual, Lakhanlal Rathore. Following an inquiry based on the Patwari’s report, witness statements, and other evidence, the SDM ordered the restoration of the land to the tribal party. These orders were subsequently upheld at the levels of the Collector, Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue. Non-Tribal Possession: Registration Deed Not the Sole Basis
The appellants argued that since the land registration was in the name of a tribal individual, revenue officers could not inquire into actual possession. The High Court rejected this argument. The Court observed that while a registered document constitutes significant evidence, it does not preclude an inquiry under Section 170-B. An inquiry into actual possession can be conducted based on factors such as the Patwari report, witness statements, house construction, electricity connections, and other circumstances. The Court clarified that electricity connections or the payment of property tax do not, in themselves, prove ownership, but they can be considered when examining the actual use and possession of the land.
Objective of the Law Protecting Tribal Land
The High Court stated that if inquiries were halted solely on the basis of the registration deed, the objective of the legislation enacted to protect tribal land would be undermined. Upholding the findings of the revenue officers based on sufficient evidence, the Court dismissed the appeal.
