1 2025:CGHC:6560-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 84 of 2025 Rajesh Agrawal S/o Shri D.K. Agrawal, aged about 54 years R/o Sadar Bazar, Main Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner, Jagdalpur Division District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 6 - Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Nilima Belsariya (Colonizer) W/o Shri T.V. Ravi, aged about 39 years R/o Village Pali, Police Station Parpa, Tah. and Distt. Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. For respondents/State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.07 10:34:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05 .02 .2025 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in writ petition has challenged the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.841 of 2016 (Rajesh Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Additional Collector, Bastar has granted permission under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the CGLRC’) vide order dated 02.07.2008 to the private respondent, who is ab-original tribe to sale her land to the petitioner, who is non-tribe in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 3/1 (piece) area 0.317 hectare situated at village Kangoli PH 103. 3 When the aforesaid permission order with regard to sale of land passed by the Additional Collector under Section 165(6) came to the knowledge of the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, the said authority initiated the suo moto proceedings under Section 50 of the CGLRC and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, vide order dated 30.01.2012 (Annexure P/11 in the writ petition) cancelled the permission granted by the Additional Collector and directed the Collector, Bastar to re-examine the case in the context of Sections 165 and 172 of CGLRC and the rules thereunder after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to present interested parties and to pass appropriate order within a period of two months. Thereafter, the Collector, Baster, after re-examining the case and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the interested parties, vide order dated 29.04.2013 (Annexure P/12 in the writ petition) directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jagdalpur to give possession of the land to the private respondent herein which was transferred by her to the petitioner. Challenging the aforesaid orders Annexure-P/11, Annexure-P/12 and Annexure-P/13, the petitioner has filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 841 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 20.11.2024. Challenging the said order, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant / writ petitioner. 4. Mr. H. B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf 4 of the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to see that Section 8 of CGLRC is paramaterial with Article 227 of Constitution of India, therefore, order of Board of Revenue is applicable in pending case also because it is not in dispute as per para 3(d) and 11 of the order that date of granting permission to sale u/s 165(6) of CGLRC was granted by Collector on 02.07.2008 and during pendency of petition, the order of Board of Revenue came on 05.10.2016 (Annexure B), therefore, it is liable to be accepted in the facts of the present case because Section 165(6) of CGLRC has been interpreted and held that order under this Section by Collector is final and discretionary, therefore no appeal or revision lies against the same. He further submitted that the Board of Revenue a like this Court has power of superintendence u/s 8 of CG Land Revenue Code and can interpret the provisions of law u/s 165(6) of CG Land Revenue Code whether that order is further amiable to appeal and revision as prescribed u/s 44 & 50 of CG Land Revenue Code or not ? being order of Collector granting permission to sale is 'administrative order' and not 'judicial order' which is further amiable to appeal or revision jurisdiction, therefore only remedy is available to the State is under Article 227 of Constitution of India for challenge the order of Collector granting permission ought to have been accepted by learned Single Judge which was negated by him in para 11 of the order. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge has also misinterpreted provisions of Section 50 5 'revision' of CGLRC which also covers suo moto power of revision, therefore also the order impugned and reasoning assigned in para 11 of the order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the writ petition, 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 the Additional Collector, Bastar has granted permission under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the CGLRC’) vide order dated 02.07.2008 to the private respondent, who is ab-original tribe to sale her land to the petitioner, who is non-tribe. When the aforesaid permission order with regard to sale of land passed by the Additional Collector under Section 165(6) came to the knowledge of the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, the said authority initiated the suo moto proceedings under Section 50 of the CGLRC and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, vide order dated 30.01.2012 (Annexure 6 P/11 in the writ petition) cancelled the permission granted by the Additional Collector and directed the Collector, Bastar to re- examine the case in the context of Sections 165 and 172 of CGLRC and the rules thereunder after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to present interested parties and to pass appropriate order within a period of two months. Thereafter, the Collector, Baster, after re-examining the case and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the interested parties, vide order dated 29.04.2013 (Annexure P/12 in the writ petition) directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jagdalpur to give possession of the land to the private respondent herein which was transferred by her to the petitioner. 8. So far as the plea taken by the appellant that the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were not having power to examine the permission order passed by the Collector under Section 165(6) is concerned, the said submission made by the appellant by referring the order dated 05.10.2016 is not acceptable in the present case, as the Divisional Commissioner passed the order much prior to 2016. 9. So far as the contention of the appellant that the State is only having remedy to challenge the order granting permission is concerned from perusal of the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue goes to show that it is only not to entertain the appeal or revision filed against the order passed by the 7 Collector under Section 165(6) and not against the suo moto power of the Divisional Commissioner. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the State is only having remedy to challenge the same by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sustainable. Even the identical issue, where the Commissioner has taken suo moto cognizance in respect of the order of the Collector passed under Section 165(6), has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.541/2017 and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner, which has attained finality. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan