1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 4748 of 2011 1 - Umesh Kumar S/o Jagannath Aged About 65 Years R/o Kanberi, Tah. Katghora Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Near Uttama Photostate, Old Bus-Stand Korba Distt. Korba Chhatisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 2), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Phool Singh S/o Ran Singh Aged About 65 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Kanberi, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh) (Revisioner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suresh Kumar (Deleted) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 19- 03-2013. 2.1 - Praveen Kumar Agrawal (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 06-07-2021. 2.1.1 - (A) Smt. Anjana Agrawal W/o- Late Praveen Kumar Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o - C/o Piyush Readymade, Power House Road, Korba, Teh./distt.- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2.1.2 - (B) Piyush Agrawal S/o Late Praveen Kumar Agrawal Aged About 24 Years R/o - C/o Piyush Readymade, Power House Road, Korba, Teh./distt.- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2.1.3 - (C) Prateek Agrawal S/o - Late Praveen Kumar Agrawal Aged About 19 Years R/o - C/o Piyush Readymade, Power House Road, Korba, Teh./distt.- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2.2 - Ravin Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Suresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Kanberi, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2.3 - Smt. Pratibha Agrawal D/o Late Suresh Kumar Agrawal, W/o Shri Kunjlal Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Purani Basti Near Turi Hatri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2.4 - Smt. Pranita Agrawal D/o Late Suresh Kumar Agrawal, W/o Shri Alok Agrawal Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Gattani Naila, Janjgir (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 3 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Additional Collector Korba, District - Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Additional Tahsildar Deepka, District- Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Along with WP227 No. 4795 of 2011 1 - (I) Praveen Kumar Agrawal (Dead) Through Lrs., As Per Court Order Dt. 06- 07-2021 And 07-12-2021., Chhattisgarh 1.1 - Smt. Anjana Agrawal Wd/o Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 49 Years R/o Power House Road, Opposite Dindayal Market, Ward No. 8, Korba Town, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Piyush Agrawal S/o Late Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 24 Years R/o Power House Road, Opposite Dindayal Market, Ward No. 8, Korba Town, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Prateek Agrawal S/o Late Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 17 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anjana Agrawal. R/o Power House Road, Opposite Dindayal Market, Ward No. 8, Korba Town, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravin Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Suresh Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Kanberi, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Pratibha Agrawal D/o Late Suresh Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 44 Years W/o Shri Kunjlal Agrawal, R/o Purani Basti Near Turi Hatri, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Pranita Agrawal D/o Late Suresh Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years W/o Shri Alok Agrawal, R/o Near Gattani School Naila, Janjgir Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Shri Phool Singh S/o Ran Singh, Aged About 60 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Kanberi, Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Umesh Kumar S/o Jagannath Aged About 65 Years R/o Kanberi, Tah. Katghora Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Near Uttama Photostate, Old Bus-Stand Korba Distt. Korba Chhatisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 2), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 --- Respondent(s) For respective Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For other Respondents : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20. 08.2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, in Revenue Case No.92 A-23/2009-2010, dated 06.07.2011, whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.1/an aboriginal tribe, has been allowed and the orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Collector have been set aside. 3. The facts of the present case are that initially, the property in question, bearing Survey Nos. 116/1, 117, 118, 121, 123, 128/1, 128/2, 128/5, 154/1, 167/2 & 265 total area 14.89 acres situated at Village Kanberi, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) were recorded in the name of Nohar Singh Kanwar, who was the father of respondent No.1/aboriginal tribe. In the year 1954-55, the name of Jagannath Prasad Agrawal, S/o Bholanath Agrawal, and Padum Lal Agrawal were recorded in the record-of-rights against those lands. Respondent No.1 moved an application under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) on 20.02.2008 for reversion of land. In the application, respondent No.1 stated that the non-applicants fraudulently got their names entered in the revenue records, and they were making an attempt to dispossess respondent No.1. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora, registered the case as Revenue Case No.14-A/23/2007-08. The notices were issued to the 4 petitioners. They appeared before the authority on 12.03.2008. On 22.09.2008, respondent No.1 examined his witnesses, namely Baharu and Chintaram. On 07.01.2009, he examined his witnesses, namely Puran Singh and Chintaram. On 18.03.2009, the petitioners examined Mahipal and on 04.05.2009 examined Umesh Kumar. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on 17.06.2009 and rejected the application moved by respondent No.1. 4. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Collector, and it was dismissed vide order 25.08.2010. Thereafter, respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Commissioner, and it was allowed vide order dated 06.07.2011, and against the said order, the petitioners have preferred the instant petitions. 5. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioner would submit that the name of Jagannath Prasad Agrawal was recorded in the record of rights of 1954- 55, and he was in possession of the property in question. They would further submit that respondent No.1 preferred an application under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959, which was registered as Case No.23-A/99- 2000 and this fact is evident from an undated complaint made by respondent No.1 (the referred document is part of the record of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Revenue). They would also contend that on 20.02.2008, respondent No.1 again preferred an application under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959, making frivolous allegations, and it was rejected by the Sub- Divisional Officer. They would contend that the Commissioner reversed the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), and the Collector held that the petitioners had not obtained any permission from the Collector to purchase the lands belonging to the aboriginal tribe. It is also held that, as the value of the property was more than 100 rupees, the 5 registration of the transaction was necessary but there is no such document on record. The Commissioner also recorded findings that the names of respondent No.1 and his relatives are mentioned against certain survey numbers in the revenue records, whereas some of the properties are recorded in the name of the petitioners. The Commissioner also recorded a finding that there is a dispute with regard to the possession of the property and further held that the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 would attract and accordingly allowed the revision. They would further contend that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are perverse as respondent No.1 failed to produce any documents to demonstrate that the properties are recorded in the name of the Aboriginal tribe. They would also contend that, as the name of Jagannath Prasad Agrawal, the father of the petitioners, was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1954-55, whereas the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was codified in the year 1959, the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 would not apply. In support of their contentions, they placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matters of Yadram (dead) through Lrs. Smt. Yamunabai and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2015 (5) CGLJ 402 (DB), and Kayaso (dead) through Lr. Budhram Vs. Baijnath and others, Second Appeal No.186 of 2004, decided on 03.09.2019. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners. He would submit that in the years 1928-29, the name of Noharsingh Kanwar was recorded in the revenue records. He would further submit that the petitioners have not produced any document before the Courts below to prove the valid transaction. He would contend 6 that though the name of Jagannath Prasad Agrawal was entered in the record-of-rights of 1954-55 but the provisions of Section 152 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (for short ‘the Code of 1954’) would come into play and without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority, the lands could have not been transferred in the name of non- tribe. He would also contend that respondent No.1 remained in possession of the property since 1928-29, and in the year 2009, when the petitioners made an attempt to dispossess respondent No.1, the application under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 was moved. He would also submit that respondent No.1 has examined the witnesses to establish the fact that the Aboriginal tribe remained in possession of the property continuously. He would further argue that respondent No.1 could not challenge the revenue entries made in the year 1954-55 in the absence of proper legal assistance or knowledge. He would also argue that the Commissioner has passed a well-reasoned order and both petitions deserve dismissal. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Sukhsen and another Vs. Shravan Kumar, 1972 RN 91. 7. Mr. Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would support the order passed by the Commissioner. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 9. A perusal of the record would show that initially, the subject lands were recorded in the name of Nohar Singh Kanwar in the revenue records of the years 1928-29. The petitioners have pleaded and argued that the property in question was purchased from Noharsingh Kanwar sometime in the year 1935-36, and thereafter, the name of Jagannath Prasad Agrawal was entered in the revenue records of the years 1954-55. 7 10. With regard to possession, respondent No.1 in his application has stated that he was in possession of the property, but his witness, namely Baharu Singh, has stated that the petitioners were cultivating the property in question for the last 30-40 years. The witness examined by the petitioners, namely Mahipal, has supported the case of non-tribe and stated that the petitioners were in possession of the property and respondent No.1 forcibly harvested the crop. 11. With regard to possession, respondent No. 1 failed to lead clinching evidence; therefore, it cannot be held that respondent No.1 remained in possession continuously after 1954. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) rejected the application moved by the petitioners on 06.07.2011 and recorded a finding that the father of Suresh Kumar Agrawal, namely Padumnath Agrawal, got his name entered in the revenue records. Thus, the finding recorded by the Commissioner with regard to possession of the property in favor of respondent no. 1 is not based on concrete material. 12. It is also observed by the Commissioner that the petitioners failed to produce any document to establish a bonafide transaction and permission obtained from the Collector. It is also held that as the value of the property was more than 100 rupees, it required registration. In the concluding paragraphs, the Commissioner held that the part of the property in question is recorded in the name of respondent No.1 and his relatives. 13. The findings recorded by the Commissioner are not based on oral or documentary evidence. It is true that no document with regard to the transaction was produced by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), but there was an entry in the record of rights of 1954-55, and such entries shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. 14. Section 103 of the Code of 1954 deals with the record-of-rights, which 8 reads as under:- “103. A record-of-rights shall be prepared and maintained for Record-of-rights every village and such record shall include the following particulars:- (a) the names of all persons, other than tenants, who holders of land; are (b) the names of all occupancy tenants and protected lessees; (c) the nature and extent of the respective interests of such persons and the conditions or liabilities, if any, attach-ing thereto; (d) the rent or land revenue, if any, payable by such persons; and (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 15. Section 104 of the Code of 1954 states acquisition of rights to be reported, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “104. Any person acquiring any right or interest in land required by or under section 103 to be entered in the record-of-rights shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the patwari within three months from the date of such acquisition, and the patwari shall at once give a written acknowledgment for such report to the person making it in the prescribed form: Provided that- (i) when the person acquiring the right is a minor or is otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the patwari; (ii) any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document or under a decree of a Civil Court shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the patwari.” 16. Section 105 of the Code of 1954 deals with the register of mutations and register of disputed cases, which reads as under:- “105. (1) The patwari shall enter in a register of mutations every acquisition of right of the kind specified under section 103 which is reported to him under section 104 or otherwise comes to his notice. (2) Whenever the patwari makes an entry in the register of mutations, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry in any place of public resort appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, and shall give written intimation to all persons appearing to him to be interested in the mutation. 9 (3) Should any objection to an entry made under sub- section (1) in the register of mutations be made either orally or in writing to the patwari, he shall enter the particulars of the objection in a register of disputed cases. The patwarı shall at once give à written acknowledgment for the objection to the person making it in the prescribed form. (4) Every entry in the register of mutations shall be tested, and, if found correct, or after correction, as the case may be, shall be certified by, and objections entered in the register of disputed cases shall be disposed of by such officers and in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) Entries in the register of mutations, when duly certified, shall be transferred to the record-of-rights in the manner prescribed. (6) An entry in the record-of-rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.” Sub-section (6) of Section 105 of the Code of 1954 would be relevant in the present case which states that an entry in the record-of-rights shall be presumed to be true till the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. 17. In the present case, though the name of Nohar Singh Kanwar was recorded in the revenue records of 1928-29 but later on, the names of Jagannath Prasad Agrawal and Padumnath Agrawal were recorded in the record-of-rights of the year 1954-55. 18. Section 115 of the Code of 1954 would be relevant, which deals with the record-of-rights at the commencement of the Code. Section 115 of the Code of 1954 is reproduced herein below:- “115. (1) Until a record-of-rights for the Central Provinces and merged territories is prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 103 the jamabandi for the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which this Code comes into force, shall, so far as it contains the particulars specified in section 103, be deemed to be the record-of-rights. (2) The jamabandi referred to in sub-section (1) shall be published in the village in such manner as may be directed by the Deputy Commissioner. 10 (3) Objections may be filed to any entry in the jamabandi and the provisions of section 105 shall apply to the objection as they apply to an entry in the mutation register and the entries shall be corrected after certification as provided for in that section.” A bare reading of this provision would make it clear that the entries made in the record-of-rights shall be published in the village in such a manner as directed by the Collector, and objections to such entries shall be entertained by the authority concerned. 19. A conjoint reading of Sections 105 (6) and 115 of the Code of 1954 would make it clear that entries made in the record-of-rights confer the right in favour of a person in whose name such entries have been made, and the entries shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. 20. Section 152 of the Code of 1954, which has been referred to by Mr. Animesh Verma, deals with the right of transfer. Sub-section (2) of this Section deals with the right of a tenure-holder belonging to a tribe. The right of a tenure-holder belonging to a tribe shall not be transferred to a person not belonging to such tribe without the permission of a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing. According to the provision of Section 152 of the Code of 1954, though a right has been conferred to the Bhumiswami but a member of the aboriginal tribe cannot transfer his right of tenure-holder without the permission of the revenue officer, i.e., Collector. 21. In the present case, as argued by Mr. Verma that the property in question was transferred in the names of non tribes in the year 1935-36, and no permission was obtained from the Collector; therefore, the transaction, if any, would be hit by provisions of Section 152(2) of the Code of 1954. He would further contend that even after the enactment of the Code of 1959, any liability, right, obligation, or privilege accrued in the Code of 1954 would 11 remain operative. 22. The contention made by Mr. Verma cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there was a transaction between Nohar Singh Kanwar on one side and Jagannath Prasad Agrawal and Padum Lal Agrawal on the other side in the years 1935-36 and at that time, the Code of 1954 was not in existence, therefore Section 152 of the Code of 1954 would not come into play. 23. The application was moved by respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959. Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 reads as under:- “170B. Reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud. (1)Every person who on the date of commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (Amendment), 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1980) is in possession of agricultural land which belonged 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, 1980 shall, within two years 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. (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 12 Officer, who shall restore the possession of such land within three months from the date of receipt of the reference (3)On receipt of the 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 transferor and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs. (3)On receipt of the information under sub-section (1) the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as may be 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- (a)Where no building or structure has been erected on the agricultural land prior to such finding pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the transferer and if he be dead, in his legal heirs, (b)Where any building or structure has been erected on the agricultural land prior to such finding, he shall fix the price of such land in accordance with the principles laid down for fixation of price of land in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (No. 1 of 1894) and order the person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay to the transferor the difference, if any, between the price so fixed and the price actually paid to the transferor : Provided that where the building or structure has been erected after the 1st day of January, 1984, the provisions of clause (b) above shall not apply : Provided further that fixation of price under clause (b) shall be with reference to the price on the date of registration of the case before the Sub-Divisional Officer.” A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that any person who is in possession of the agricultural land belonging to a member of a tribe between 1959 to 1980 shall, within two years of such commencement, notify the Sub-Divisional Officer in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. The requirement of the provision is that if any person belonging to the non-tribe is in possession of the property belonging to the aboriginal tribe, then he has to notify. 13 24. In the present case, respondent No.1 has not adduced any documentary evidence to establish the fact that he was the rightful owner of the property in question between 1959 to 1980 and he was dispossessed during this period by the petitioners; therefore, the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 would not apply at all. 25. It has been argued by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that earlier an application was moved which was registered as Revenue Case No.23-A/99-2000 and thereafter, the subsequent application was moved by respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959, I find substance in the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioners, as there was no reason for respondent No.1 to move the subsequent application and he should have approached the concerned authority for the early disposal of the previous application. 26. In the matter of Yadram (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that Section 170-B of the Code, as amended, covers the transaction made between 02.10.1959 and 24.10.1980 and not the transaction made prior to 02.10.1959. Para 17 is reproduced herein below:- “17. In the present case, law is amended with limited retrospective effect. Plain reading of Section 170-B of the Code as amended covers the transaction made between 2-10-1959 till 24-10-1980 and not the transaction made prior to 2-10-1959. The language of Section 170-B of the Code is plain and unambiguous and it is not permissible to deploy rules of interpretation to attribute any other meaning to the words used by the legislature, that those which naturally flow from it. If the plain words of Section 170-B of the Code are interpreted in such a way as to assign its meaning other than what is written in it, that is, if the Section is read to apply to transactions done prior to 2-10-1959 despite specific stipulation in the Section that it will apply to transactions done on and after 2-10-1959, then such an interpretation will create new obligations and duties disturbing the vested rights which, normally, should not be done by resorting to interpretation. Therefore, on the face of the plain and unambiguous wordings of Section 170-B of the Code, we are unable to subscribe to any 14 view other than the one that it is restricted in its application to the transactions done between 2-10-1959 and 24-10-1980 only.” 27. In the present case, there was no transaction between 02.10.1959 and 24.10.1980; therefore, the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 would not attract. 28. In the matter of Kayaso (supra), it is held that the record-of-rights prepared under the Code of 1954 shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. 29. The judgment cited by Mr. Animesh Verma, i.e., Sukhsen (supra), wherein in para 13, a duty has been cast on the authority concerned to record reasons while permitting the transfer of rights by a Bhumiswami belonging to an aboriginal tribe. Relevant para 13 is reproduced herein below:- “13. The authorities more in point are the decisions in the cases of H. N. Malak and Collector of Monghyr (supra). In the latter case, their Lordships held the exercise of the powers under section 5-A of the Bibar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922, where no reasons were recorded by the Collector as unjustified by the statute and void. So also, this Court in H.N Malak's case reached a similar conclusion. A fortiori, applying the same principles to the circumstances of the present case, the failure of the Additional Collector to record his reasons in writing renders the grant of permission for transfer under section 152 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, a nullity, and, therefore, the transfer being void, is legally unenforceable. It is true that the defendant No. 1 Sukhsen had himself initiated proceedings and the permission was granted on his asking, but the requirements of section 152 (2) ibid being imperative, the defendants are not estopped from challenging the validity of the transfer because there is no estoppel against a statute. (See, Maritime Electric Co. v. General Dairies [1]). In case of a statute like section 152 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, enacted for the benefit of a section of the public, that is, on grounds of public policy, where the statute imposes a duty of a positive kind like the recording of reasons in writing permitting transfer of his rights by a Bhumiswami belonging to an aboriginal tribe, which is a condition precedent to the validity of the transfer, the 15 failure to perform that duty does not prevent the recipient of the permission from challenging its validity on the ground of non-fulfilment of the terms of the section. So, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Murtiza Khan's case (supra), in dealing with an order granting a patta., state: "The order ex facie does not indicate that the requisite permission was obtained from the Government. Ordinarily, if such a previous permission had been obtained, it would have been mentioned in the order.” "In the circumstances, when it does not disclose any recital of such a previous permission.... it follows that the order, having been made in non-compliance with the necessary conditions of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, is void." 30. The present is not a case where the Collector or the Additional Collector granted permission of transfer without recording reasons rather, there was a transaction between the parties in the year 1934-35, much prior to 1954; therefore, the provisions of Section 152 would not attract, thus, the judgment cited by Mr. Verma is of no help. Further, respondent No. 1 never challenged the revenue entries of 1954 before any authority, and they became absolute. 31. Considering the above-discussed facts and the law discussed-above, the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, in Revenue Case No.92 A-23/2009-2010, dated 06.07.2011, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 32. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha