1 2025:CGHC:10195-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 141 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sunita Agrawal W/o Ashok Agrawal Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through General Power Of Attorney Holder, Ashok Agrawal, S/o Late P.P. Agrawal, Aged About 68 Years, Caste Agrawal, R/o Baldev State Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, Aadhar No. 482783709168. ...appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Guja W/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Trilochan S/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Khatkudik S/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kanwal W/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Geeta D/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 7 - Lokhnath S/o Laxman R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar 2 Chhattisgarh. 8 - Laxminath S/o Laxman R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 9 - Mangaldei W/o Laxman R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 10 - Somari W/o Laxminath R/o Village Aghanpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03 .03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent/ State. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 20-11-2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3346 of 2022 (Smt. Sunita Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), by which the writ petition filed by the appellant / writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 84 of 2025 (Rajesh Agrawal Vs. 3 State of Chhattisgarh and others) vide order dated 05-02-2025 observing as follows : “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 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 4 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 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, 5 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).” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 84 of 2025, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 84 of 2025, hence, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 84 of 2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 05-02-2025 passed in WA No. 84 of 2025 (Rajesh Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.11 15:08:56 +0530