1 2025:CGHC:31475-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 451 of 2025 1 - Ajay Agrawal S/o Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Nilima Agrawal W/o Ajay Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Mehatarin D/o Hanumat R/o Village - Bhirlinga, Tahsil - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.), (Respondents) 2 - Kasula D/o Hanumat R/o Village - Bhirlinga, Tahsil - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Fagni D/o Hanumat R/o Village - Bhirlinga, Tahsil - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Sumni D/o Hanumat R/o Village - Bhirlinga, Tahsil - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Jaymani D/o Hanumat R/o Village - Bhirlinga, Tahsil - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Dabnawati D/o Paklu R/o Village - Bhirlinga, Tahsil - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 7 - Ajay Singh S/o Arjun Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Mahupal, Barai, Tahsil - Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) 8 - Nagendra Singh S/o Arjun Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Chandhi Chowk, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 9 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District - Bastar (C.G.) 10 - Halka Patwari No. 45 Kachnar Tahsil - Bakawand, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 . 07 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 9 & 10. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were writ petitioners in the writ petition, have challenged the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.72 of 2019 (Ajay Agrawal & Another Vs. Smt. Mehatarin & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants herein has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the matter has been remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bastar to decide the case afresh after holding a due inquiry strictly in accordance with the 3 provisions of Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’). 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the land admeasuring 2.82 acres situated at Village-Bhirlinga, Tehsil Bastar, District Jagdalpur was recorded in the name of Hanumat. He moved an application seeking permission to sell his property according to the provisions of Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959 and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.07.1972 and thereafter, he sold the property through a registered sale deed to one Radhabai. Radhabai sold the property to the appellants herein. The appellants were found in possession of the suit property, therefore, on the application moved by Hanumat, a proceeding under Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 was initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bastar. The authority concerned rejected the application moved by Hanumat on the ground that earlier, a similar application was moved in the year 1992 and the same was rejected and there was permission according to the provisions of Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959 in favour of Radhabai. Thereafter, Hanumat preferred an appeal before the Collector against the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer and the same was rejected on 06.04.2015. He preferred a revision before the Commissioner Bastar, Division Jagdalpur and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2018. The appellants have challenged the said order by filing the writ petition being WPC No. 72/2019 before this Court 4 and the said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 22.01.2025 and the matter has been remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bastar to decide the case afresh after holding a due inquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter has been twice decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Collector had also dismissed the appeal of the private respondents, therefore, the Commissioner exceeded his revisional jurisdiction and its order dated 19.12.2018 was illegal. He further submitted that though the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the appellants and set aside the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner, but the learned Single Judge ought not to have remanded the case again to the SDO (Revenue) Bastar for deciding afresh, as the SDO Revenue had already decided twice (vide order dated 05.09.1991 and 29.09.2014) that the original land owner had obtained permission from the Collector before transferring of land, as it would generate interminable litigation and injustice to the bonafide purchaser. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the learned Single Judge after 5 considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly remanded the matter for fresh consideration before the SDO(R), in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record it transpires that with regard to the permission granted under Section 165(6) of the Code of 1959, it was held that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) being the competent authority according to the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959 can only inquire into the matter, record evidence of the parties, consider the documents and also may declare the transaction null and void. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the Commissioner committed an error of law while deciding the revision finally on merits and accordingly set aside the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner and remitted back the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bastar to decide the case afresh after holding a due inquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code of 1959. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while alloweing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity 6 or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra