1 2026:CGHC:26201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3124 of 2026 1 - Amrit Lal Patel S/o Damru Lal Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jogidadar, Post Limdarha Tehisl Pithora District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 4 - Additional Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 5 - Dev Kumar Diwan (Kanwar ) S/o Shri Ram Lal Diwan Caste Kanwar (Scheduled Tribe) R/o Village Kurud Tehsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). 6 - Rajesh Kumar Pawar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Pawar R/o Gadadih Tehsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by commanding the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no. 2 (Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur) to conclude/decide the complaint/representation dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), within a time frame. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 5 is the recorded bhumiswami and owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 424/2 admeasuring 1.42 hectares and Khasra No. 425/2 admeasuring 0.20 hectare situated at Village Khursipahar, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.), and belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (Kanwar) community, which is recognized as an aboriginal tribe under the provisions of Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Respondent No. 5 intended to transfer the aforesaid tribal land in favour of respondent No. 6, who belongs to a non-tribal community, and for the said purpose an application purportedly under Section 165(6-a) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was entertained by the Court of the Additional Collector, Mahasamund. Thereupon, Revenue Case 3 No. 34-A/21/2022-23 was registered and the learned Additional Collector, Mahasamund, by order dated 17.03.2023, while purportedly exercising powers under Section 165(6-a) of the Code, granted permission for transfer of the aforesaid land in favour of respondent No. 6 subject to certain conditions. According to the petitioner, the said order has been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction, as the powers under Section 165(6-a) are vested exclusively in the Collector and cannot be exercised by the Additional Collector. After coming to know about the said order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation/complaint dated 20.04.2026 before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, specifically questioning the jurisdiction and competence of the Additional Collector to pass the impugned order and seeking appropriate action in accordance with law. However, despite the lapse of considerable time, no effective action has been taken by the competent authority on the petitioner's representation, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Mahasamund, granting permission for transfer of tribal land in favour of respondent No. 6, is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 165(6-a) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, as the said provision 4 exclusively vests the power to grant such permission in the Collector, which cannot be delegated or exercised by the Additional Collector. He further submits that even the Government notification issued in the year 1984 recognizes that the power under Section 165(6-a) is to be exercised exclusively by the Collector, and therefore the impugned order is ex facie illegal and void ab initio. It is further submitted that immediately after acquiring knowledge of the illegal order, the petitioner preferred a detailed representation dated 20.04.2026 before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, pointing out the patent lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Collector and requesting appropriate action; however, despite the lapse of considerable time, the said representation has not been decided and no corrective steps have been taken by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel submits that when a statutory authority exercises a power not vested in it by law, the resultant order is a nullity and suffers from an inherent jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation within a stipulated time and pass such further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 State vehemently opposes the writ petition and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petition is devoid of merit and does not disclose any ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon perusal of the petition, this Court does not find that the petitioner has established any locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. In the absence of any legal right or enforceable interest having been demonstrated, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person aggrieved. Accordingly, no interference is called for in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving it open to any person having the requisite locus standi or who is otherwise aggrieved by the action of the State authorities to avail such remedy as may be available in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat