1 / 14 2025:CGHC:61723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5244 of 2022 Smt. Sabina Raza W/o Salim Raza, D/o L. Venkateshwar Rao Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Board Of Revenue Bilaspur Through Chairman Cum Secretary, Circuit Court Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Jagdalpur, Division Baster, District Baster Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Baster, Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Saradi (Since Died) W/o Laxman R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Guja W/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 6 - Trilochan S/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.12.23 16:00:23 +0530 2 / 14 7 - Khatkudi S/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 8 - Kanwal S/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Geeta D/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 10 - Shri Bali (Died) S/o Sukhram R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 11 - Loknath S/o Laxman R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 12 - Laxminath S/o Laxman R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 13 - Mangaldai S/o Laxman R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh 14 - Somari W/o Laxminath R/o Village Aghanpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 16/12/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record relating to the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to 14 for kind perusal. 3 / 14 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. R.N. 01/R/A- 21/223/2012 and order dated 28.01.2012 passed by Commissioner Bastar Division in Suo Moto Rev. Case No. 37/A-21/2010-11 in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief in favour of the petitioner which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the ends of justice.” 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that respondents No. 4 to 14 owned 2.10 acres of land bearing Khasra No. 23 situated at Village- Aghanpur, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar. Out of 2.10 acres, 1.50 acres of land was diverted for residential use by order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the SDO, Jagdalpur. The land was thereafter subdivided into plots, and permission to sell was granted by the Additional Collector on 18.03.2009 . Through their power of attorney holder, respondents No. 4 to 14 agreed to sell 0.11-acre of land to the petitioner for consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-, receiving Rs. 1,50,000/- as advance. As the respondents belonged to a tribal community petitioner being not member of scheduled tribe community, permission to sell was obtained . It was ordered, subject to sale at Collector guideline rates and execution of the sale deed within three months. Upon payment of the balance amount, petitioner purchased the plot through a registered sale deed. Subsequently, the Commissioner, Bastar Division, initiated suo motu revision proceeding as envisaged under Section 50(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for 4 / 14 short “Code of 1959”) and by order dated 28.01.2012 set aside the permission, holding it contrary to Section 165(6)(a) of the Code of 1959, and remanded the matter with a direction to Collector to re- examine the case and pass suitable order. Revisions filed by both parties against order of Commissioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 30.03.2022, affirming order passed by Commissioner, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provision under Section 165(6)(i) of the Code of 1959 is not applicable to the lands situated within municipal area and Village- Aghanpur was declared an urban area and brought within Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur. Diverted non-agricultural land within the municipal area falls outside the purview of Sections 165(6)(i) of the Code of 1959. It is contended that although Section 165(6)(i) restricts transfer of agricultural land by a tribal to a non-tribal, bar does not apply to land diverted for residential use in an urban area, and in the present case due permission under Section 165(6)(ii) was obtained, full consideration was paid, and the sale deed was duly executed. He submits suo motu jurisdiction was wrongly exercised by the Commissioner to reopen a concluded matter after lapse of long time of passing of order by the Addl. Collector granting permission to sale the land and therefore it is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the order of Commissioner and Board of Revenue. 5. In order to appreciate submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that, subject land is situated within municipal area and therefore provisions of the Code of 1959 will not apply, it is necessary to first 5 / 14 have a look at the relevant provisions. Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') is reproduced herein below for ready reference;- “2. Repeal of Enactment.- (1) On the application of this Act to any city, the municipality of that city shall, save as hereinafter provided, be deemed to have been withdrawn from the operation of the Municipal Laws: Provided that on the application of this Act to any city under sub-section (3) of Section 1, the authority or any institution if performing the Municipal functions shall cease to perform such functions and all assets and liabilities of such authority or institution shall vest in the Municipal Corporation constituted under this Act. (2) This withdrawal shall not revive any office, authority or thing abolished by the Municipal Law, or affect the validity of anything done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability accrued, before the application of this Act. (3) Nothing herein contained shall deprive any person of any right to property, or other private right, except as hereinafter provided.” 6. Section 2 of the Act of 1956 says that earlier Municipal laws stand repealed on the application of the Act of 1956. Hence, the submission of learned Counsel for appellants that upon coming into force of the Act of 1956, the Code of 1959 is excluded from its operation on the lands situated within municipal limits, is not acceptable. 7. Article 244 of the Constitution of India deals with “administration of scheduled areas and tribal areas”. It envisages that 5th Schedule to Article 244 of the Constitution of India shall apply to the administration and control of scheduled areas and scheduled tribes in any State other 6 / 14 than the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura & Mizoram. Clause (A) in Part-A of 5th Scheduled to Article 244 of the Constitution of India mentions about executive power of the State in scheduled areas. The then State of Madhya Pradesh issued Notification, which was published in the Official Gazette in the year 1960, specifying aboriginal tribes under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code of 1959. The Schedule of aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code of 1959 was amended from time to time. Relevant portion is extracted below for ready reference;- “15. Notifications: (1) Aboriginal Tribes specified.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of S. 165 of the Code, the State Government has declared the tribes specified in the Schedule below to be aboriginal tribes for the whole of the area to which the said Code applies.- SCHEDULE 1. Andh 2. Agariya 3. Bhil and Bhilala, which includes Barele and Pateliya 4. Baiga 5. Bharia-Bhumia or Bhuinhar Bhumia, Pando 6. Bhaina 7. Bhattra 8. Bhunjia 9. Binijhwar 10.Birhul or Birher 11.Biar or Biyar 12.Bhumiya, including Bharia and Paliha 13. Bhanwar 14. Damor, Damaria 15. Gond including.- 16. xxxx 17. xxxx 18. xxxx 19. xxxx 20. xxxx 21. xxxx 22. xxxx 7 / 14 23. xxxx 24. xxxx 25. xxxx 26. xxxx 27. xxxx 28. xxxx 29. xxxx 30. xxxx 31. xxxx 32. xxxx 33. xxxx 34. xxxx 35. xxxx 36. xxxx 37. xxxx 38. xxxx 39. xxxx 40. xxxx 41. xxxx 42. xxxx 43. xxxx 44. xxxx 45. xxxx 46. Meena, only for Seronj Sub Division (Revenue) of Vidisha District..” 8. The erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide Notification dated 21.2.1977, published in the Official Gazette dated 11.3.1977, specified the date and in Column No.2 of Schedule the areas which are predominantly inhabited by aboriginal tribes, which read as under;- “Notification No.F-5-3-76-384-VII-M-1 dated 11th March 1977.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i) of sub-section (6) of section 165 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959),the State Government hereby, specifies - (i) The 26th January 1977 as the date;and (ii)The areas predominantly inhabited by aboriginal tribes mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule below as the areas, for the purpose of said clause, 8 / 14 S. No. (1) Area comprised within the limits of Tahsil (2) District (3) Division (4) 1. xxxx xxxx xxxx 2. xxxx xxxx xxxx 3. xxxx xxxx xxxx 4. xxxx xxxx xxxx 5. xxxx xxxx xxxx 6. xxxx xxxx xxxx 7. xxxx xxxx xxxx 8. (1) Balod (1) Rajnandgaon (1)Bhanupratappur (2) Kanker (3) Narayanpur (4) Kondagaon (5) Jagdalpur (6) Dantewada (7) Konta (8) Bijapur (1) Dhamtari (2)Bindranawagarh (Gariaband) 18. Durg 19. Rajnandgaon 20. Bastar 21. Raipur. 9. Raipur 9. After reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh and carving out of new State of Chhattisgarh, the State of Chhattisgarh in supersession of Departmental Notification No.5-3-76-384 Seven-N stipulated dated 26.1.1977, published Notification in the Official Gazette dated 29.9.2005, which reads as under:- “In supersession of Departmental Notification Number 5-3- 76-384 Seven-N stipulated dated 26.1.1977, the State Government hereby declare the following area shown as schedule as specified area for the purpose of sub-section (6) of section 165 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959) S. No. Area comprised within the limits of Tahsil District 1. Whole District Surguja Surguja 2. Whole District Koria Koria 3. Whole District Bastar Bastar 9 / 14 4. Whole District Dantewada Dantewada 5. Whole District Kanker Kanker 6. Marwahi Gorella-1, Gorella-2, Tribal Development Blocks and Kota Revenue Inspector Circle in Bilaspur Bilaspur 7. Whole District Korba Korba 8. Whole District Jashpur Jashpur 9. Dharamjaigarh, Gharghoda, Tamnar, Lailunga and Kharsia. Tribal Development Blocks in Raigarh Raigarh 10. Dondi Tribal Development Blocks in Durg Durg 11. Chauki, Manpur and Mohla Tribal Development Blocks in Rajnandgaon. Rajnandgaon 12. Gariaband, Mainpur and Chhura Tribal Development Blocks in Raipur Raipur 13. Nagri (Sihawa) Tribal Development Blocks in Dhamtari. Dhamtari 10. Section 165 of the Code of 1959 deals with rights of transfer. Relevant portion of Section 165 (6) of the Code of 1959 is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “165. Rights of transfer;- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section and the provision of Section 168 a bhumiswami may transfer x x x any interest in his land. (2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx (5) xxxxxx (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) the right of bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a notification in that behalf, for the whole or part of the area to which this Code applies shall- (i) in such areas as are predominately inhabited by aboriginal tribes and from such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify, not be transferred nor it shall be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of 10 / 14 transaction of loan to a person not belonging to such tribe in the area specified in the notification. (ii) in areas other than those specified in the notification under clause (i), not to be transferred or be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan 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.” 11. It is provided under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code of 1959 that from the date of issuance of notification by the State Government, any land situated in the areas predominantly inhabited by aboriginal tribes shall not be transferable or it shall not be transferable to a person not belonging to such tribe in the area specified and the land owned by a tribal not situated within the notified area not to be transferred or transferable to non-tribal without prior permission of the revenue officer not below the rank of the Collector. Provision of sub- section (6) of Section 165 of the Code of 1959 is very clear that there is complete ban in transfer of the land owned by tribe situated within scheduled area to a non-tribe person. The provisions of the Code of 1959 do not differentiate between the land situated within or outside the municipal/ municipality area. Hence, it is to be ordinarily understood that provisions under Section 165 (6) (i) of the Code of 1959 will apply to all the lands situated within the scheduled areas. It also does not differentiate whether the land is diverted or agriculture. From bare reading of sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code of 1959, it is explicitly clear that intention of the Legislature is to restrain transfer of land owned by tribes situated in scheduled areas in favour of non-tribals. It even does not differentiate the land situated within municipal area or it is diverted one. Hence, in view of specific provisions contained in the Code of 1959, in the opinion of this Court, 11 / 14 even if the land in question was diverted prior to execution of sale deed and situated within municipal area, the Additional Collector was not having any jurisdiction to even entertain application for grant of permission to sell / transfer land owned by tribe situated within scheduled area to a non-tribe person. The Collector is having power to grant permission for transfer of land of a tribe which is not situated in scheduled area. 12. Identical issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench in W.A. No.187/2017, parties being K.S. Sujeeth vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors wherein land involved therein was situated in municipality area of Bade Bacheli (scheduled area of District Dantewada). The Division Bench taking note of the order passed in WPC No.3509/2011 (Vijay Pandey v. State of CG & ors) has held that land situated in scheduled area owned by a tribe cannot be transferred in any manner in view of bar contained in Section 165 (6) (i) of the Code of 1959. 13. The order passed in WA No.187/2017 (supra) was put to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.11324/2019 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 6.5.2019 by observing thus:- “We are not inclined to interfere in these Special Leave Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly. However, we accede to the request orally made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to give time to vacate the suit premises for a period of 6 months from today, subject to filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks. Ordered accordingly....” 12 / 14 14. In view of the above facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that provisions of Section 165 (6) of the Code of 1959 are not applicable to the lands situated within the municipal area is not sustainable. 15. Next limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that the Commissioner erred in exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction after lapse of more than two years. This argument is bereft of merit. No material is placed on record to show that the order granting permission to sell land was within the knowledge of the Commissioner. It appears that suo motu revisional power is exercised by the Commissioner after coming to his knowledge illegality committed by the Additional Collector. The order which was taken into suo motu revision by the Commissioner was an order passed by the Additional Collector who was not having jurisdiction to grant permission for sale / transfer of land of a tribe situated in notified scheduled area in favour of a non-tribe. This being the position, the Additional Collector could not have entertained the application seeking permission to transfer/ sell the land of a tribe situated in notified area to a non-tribe. 16. In case of Ranveer Singh (deceased by L.Rs) vs. State of MP, reported in AIR 2011 MP 27, it was held that period of limitation would start from the date of knowledge of any illegality committed by authority. In case at hand, the Additional Collector was not having jurisdiction to grant permission to transfer land situated in scheduled area owned by tribe to non-tribe, the order granting permission was per se illegal. The Commissioner registered suo motu revision after getting knowledge of illegal order. Hence, in the given facts of case, 13 / 14 submission of learned counsel that exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner beyond the reasonable period is arbitrary exercise of powers, is not having any force. 17. Facts of present case, as discussed in preceding paragraph, agricultural land (subject matter of writ petition) was diverted only on 19.03.2008. The Tahsildar, Jagdalpur in his report dated 16.01.2009 recommended for grant of permission to transfer/ sell. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Officer (R) Jagdalpur vide order dated 20.02.2009 has also recommended for sale of land and forwarded it to Addl. Collector who in turn granted permission on 18.03.2009. Sale deed is submitted for registration on 19.12.2009. Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, who is superior authority, took cognizance of illegality committed by Addl. Collector, suo motu registered revision case under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 and after issuing notice to the interested parties including appellants herein, providing opportunity of hearing, set aside the order granting permission dated 18.03.2009 and remitted back the case for reconsideration. 18. As discussed above, the subject land is situated in scheduled area predominately inhabited by aboriginal tribes and was owned by member belonging to a scheduled tribe community, therefore, there cannot be any transfer of interest of the aboriginal tribe, in any manner, in view of the bar imposed under the provisions of Section 165 (6) (i), of the Code of 1959. 19. For the foregoing discussions, judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in K.S. Sujeeth (supra), I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur 14 / 14 affirming the order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division whereby the Commissioner set aside the order dated 18.03.2009 passed by Addl. Collector granting permission to sell the land situated at scheduled area predominately inhabited by aboriginal tribe and aboriginal tribe (ST), to non-tribe. 20. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen