1 CGHC010166982025 2026:CGHC:36423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2532 of 2025 1 - Sundarsingh Dhruv S/o Munshiram Dhruv Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Pangaon, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinarm Shukla S/o Vidyabhushan Shukla Aged About 34 Years Partner East Coast Logistics, R/o Lavan Road, Balodabazar, Tehsil - Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Balodabazar Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Registrar Balodabazar Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State/Respondents : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.08.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioners have called in question the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby permission to sell the subject land has been declined, and have prayed for quashing of YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.18 17:27:38 +0530 2 the said order and for a consequential direction permitting them to sell the land in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 7/4/25 (Annexure P-6) and grant the permission to the petitioners for selling the land in accordance with law in the interest of justice. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case and of land for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 2 The brief facts of the case are that the disputed land bearing Khasra No.736 admeasuring 0.154 hectare, and Khasra No.738/1, admeasuring 0.142 hectare, total Area 0.296 hectare situated at Village Dasharma, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) belongs to petitioner No.1, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The land was diverted from agricultural to commercial use vide order dated 18.09.2020 and was thereafter leased to respondent No.2 for establishment of a petrol pump. Petitioner No.1 thereafter sought permission from the Collector, Balodabazar Bhatapara to alienate the land in favour of petitioner No.2. When the sale deed was refused registration for want of 3 such permission, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1042/2025, wherein, vide order dated 21.02.2025, the Collector was directed to decide their application. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, vide impugned order dated 07.04.2025, rejected the application on the ground that no benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe had been demonstrated. 3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition, contending that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Code’) and violative of their constitutional right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the land is diverted for commercial use and is situated in a non- scheduled area and, therefore, no prior permission of the Collector is required for its alienation. It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 proceeds on an erroneous premise that the petitioners were required to demonstrate any benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe before the land could be permitted to be alienated. According to learned counsel, the subject land having already been diverted for commercial purposes and being situated in a non-scheduled area, the 4 restrictions contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Code are not attracted in the manner understood by the Collector. 5 Learned counsel further submits that the right to alienate one's own property is an important facet of the right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and such right cannot be curtailed except by authority of law. It is contended that the Collector, instead of examining the application in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, has rejected the same on an extraneous and legally unsustainable consideration, thereby causing serious civil consequences to the petitioners. 6 In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Vijay v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 11234, and submits that the legal position enunciated therein squarely supports the case of the petitioners. On the strength of the aforesaid decision, learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioners' claim for alienation of the subject land be considered in accordance with law. 7 Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the present petition is devoid of merit, as the petitioners have failed to establish any enforceable right warranting interference under 5 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1042/2025, the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, considered the petitioners' application under Section 165(6) of the Code and, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2025. Learned State counsel submits that the Collector, while exercising the statutory and quasi-judicial jurisdiction conferred under the Code, found that the petitioners had failed to disclose any cogent or satisfactory ground justifying the proposed alienation. It was further found that the land, though diverted for commercial purposes, was being used for running a petrol pump and that the proposed sale would leave the petitioners with land insufficient to safeguard their livelihood. The Collector, keeping in view the protective object underlying Section 165(6) of the Code and the interest of the Scheduled Tribe landholder, accordingly rejected the application by a reasoned and speaking order. 8 Learned State counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme after due consideration of the material available on record and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is contended that the Collector has exercised his quasi-judicial discretion in order to protect the livelihood and socio-economic interests of the tribal landholder, and no arbitrariness, perversity or jurisdictional error is made out 6 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Learned State counsel, however, submits that the validity and legality of the impugned order are ultimately matters for judicial scrutiny by this Court and, without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the State shall abide by and faithfully comply with any order or direction that may be passed by this Court in the present proceedings. 9 Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the subject land bearing Khasra No.736 admeasuring 0.154 hectare, and Khasra No.738/1, admeasuring 0.142 hectare, total Area 0.296 hectare situated at Village Dasharma, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) is recorded in the name of petitioner No.1, who admittedly belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. The land was originally recorded as agricultural land, but was subsequently diverted for commercial purposes vide order dated 18.09.2020. Thereafter, the said land was leased in favour of respondent No.2 for establishment of a petrol pump. Petitioner No.1 thereafter intended to alienate the subject land in favour of petitioner No.2 and, accordingly, approached the competent authority seeking the requisite permission for such alienation. 10 It is further apparent from the record that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1042/2025, as the proposed sale deed could not be registered for want of 7 permission from the competent authority. This Court, vide order dated 21.02.2025, directed the Collector, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, to consider and decide the application submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Collector considered the matter and, vide the impugned order dated 07.04.2025, rejected the petitioners' application seeking permission to alienate the subject land. 11 A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector has principally declined permission on the ground that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe from the proposed transaction. Thus, the rejection is not founded upon any finding that the proposed transaction is expressly prohibited under Section 165(6) of the Code, nor has the Collector recorded any specific finding that the proposed alienation falls within an area where transfer of tribal land is absolutely prohibited. The rejection proceeds essentially on the consideration that the petitioners have not established a sufficient benefit in favour of the tribal landholder. 12 The material on record further discloses that the character and use of the subject land had already undergone a substantial change prior to the petitioners' application for permission. By order dated 18.09.2020, the land had been diverted from agricultural to commercial use and thereafter had been leased to respondent No.2 for establishment of a petrol pump. Therefore, 8 while considering the petitioners' request for permission to alienate the land, the competent authority was required to examine the application in the backdrop of the existing status, nature and use of the land and the precise statutory restrictions governing transfer of land belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe. 13 The principal submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Collector, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 165(6) of the Code, has introduced a consideration which is not contemplated by the statutory provision, namely, that the petitioners were required to demonstrate a particular or identifiable benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe. It is contended that the Collector was required to examine whether the proposed transaction was legally permissible under the provisions of the Code and could not reject the application on the basis of an additional condition which finds no express place in the statutory scheme. Learned counsel has further submitted that the subject land having already been diverted for commercial use and being situated in a non-scheduled area, the proposed alienation ought to have been considered within the parameters of Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code. 14 The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Collector was justified in rejecting the petitioners' application for permission 9 to alienate the subject land merely on the ground that no benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe had been demonstrated, without recording a specific finding that the proposed transfer was prohibited by any provision of the Code. The issue also requires examination as to whether the discretion vested in the Collector under Section 165(6)(ii) could be exercised by importing a condition or consideration which is not expressly contemplated by the statutory provision. 15 For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote 165 (6-a) of the Code of 1959, which reads as under:- “(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 transaction of loan [or will (bequest)] 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 10 transferred or be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan [or will (bequest)] 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. [Provided that the provision of this sub- section shall not be applicable to the land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisitions, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013). Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub- section the expression "otherwise" shall not include lease. (6-a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the right of a bhumiswami other than a bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6), in the land excluding the agricultural land shall not 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 aboriginal tribe without the permission of the Collector given for reasons to be recorded in writing : Provided that every such transfer effected after the 9th day of June, 1980 but before the 11 20th April, 1981 which is not in accordance with the provisions herein contained shall, unless such transfer if ratified by the Collector in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained, be void and shall be of no effect whatsoever, notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force.” 16 Section 165(6) and Section 165(6-a) deal with restrictions upon transfer of land by a tribal bhumiswami to a non-tribal person and merely require prior permission of the competent authority. 17 Whereas Section 165(7) operates in an altogether different field relating to attachment or sale of land in execution of a decree or order. The embargo contained in Section 165(7) is thus applicable only in proceedings relating to coercive attachment or auction sale in execution proceedings and cannot be extended to voluntary transfer by way of sale after obtaining permission from the Collector. Section 165 (7) (a) reads as under:- “(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or in any other law for the time being in force- (a) where the area of land comprised in a holding or if there be more than one holding the aggregate area of all holdings of a bhumiswami is in excess of five acres of irrigated or ten acres of unirrigated land, then only so much area of land in his holding or holdings shall be 12 liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or order as is in excess of five acres of irrigated or ten acres of unirrigated land; 18 In the present case, the authorities have travelled beyond the scope and ambit of Sections 165(6) and 165(6-a) of the Code, by importing a condition which is not contemplated by the statutory scheme, namely, that a tribal Bhumiswami must, in every case, necessarily retain five acres of irrigated land or ten acres of unirrigated land even after the proposed alienation. 19 The authorities appear to have proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the aforesaid provisions by treating the minimum extent of five acres of irrigated land or ten acres of unirrigated land as an absolute embargo upon alienation, irrespective of the nature and purpose of the proposed transaction and the circumstances in which permission is sought. Such an interpretation cannot be sustained unless the statute itself expressly imposes such a restriction upon the exercise of the right of alienation. 20 The relevant provision, when properly construed, relates to the extent of land which is protected from attachment or sale in execution of any decree or order. Where the land comprised in the holding or holdings of a Bhumiswami exceeds five acres of irrigated land or ten acres of unirrigated land, only the area in excess thereof is liable to attachment or sale in execution of a 13 decree or order. The provision, therefore, cannot be mechanically construed as prescribing an absolute requirement that, in every application seeking permission for voluntary alienation, the Bhumiswami must necessarily be left with five acres of irrigated land or ten acres of unirrigated land. 21 In the present case, the subject land is situated at Village Dasharma, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, and petitioner No.1 is admittedly a member of the Scheduled Tribe. However, the land bearing Khasra No.736 admeasuring 0.154 hectare, and Khasra No.738/1, admeasuring 0.142 hectare, total Area 0.296 hectare situated at Village Dasharma, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) had already been diverted from agricultural to commercial use vide order dated 18.09.2020 and was thereafter leased to respondent No.2 for establishment of a petrol pump. Thus, the application was required to be considered having regard to the actual nature and status of the land and the statutory restrictions governing its transfer. 22 It is not in dispute that the petitioners had approached the competent authority seeking permission for alienation and, upon the sale deed not being registered for want of such permission, had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1042/2025. This Court, vide order dated 21.02.2025, directed the Collector to consider the petitioners' application. The Collector thereafter passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 rejecting the 14 application. Significantly, the rejection does not rest upon a finding that the proposed transferee was disqualified under Section 165(6), or that the land was situated in an area covered by the absolute prohibition contained in Section 165(6)(i). Rather, the Collector proceeded principally on the ground that the petitioners had failed to establish any benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe. 23 In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid approach of the Collector cannot be sustained. Section 165(6) undoubtedly embodies a protective statutory regime intended to prevent exploitation and indiscriminate alienation of land belonging to members of the Scheduled Tribes. However, while exercising the jurisdiction conferred under the said provision, the competent authority is required to remain within the parameters prescribed by the statute. The protective object of the provision cannot, by itself, authorise the authority to introduce an additional condition which is not contemplated by the statutory scheme or to reject an otherwise permissible transaction merely because, in the opinion of the authority, a particular form of benefit has not been demonstrated. 24 In the present case, the Collector was required to examine the petitioners' application on the touchstone of the statutory requirements governing alienation under Section 165(6) of the Code. In particular, the authority was required to ascertain the 15 applicability of the relevant clause of Section 165(6), the nature and status of the subject land, the identity and status of the proposed transferee, the circumstances in which the permission was sought and whether any specific statutory prohibition operated against the proposed transaction. The fact that petitioner No.1 belongs to the Scheduled Tribe undoubtedly attracts the protective provisions of Section 165(6); however, such protection cannot be converted into an absolute prohibition against alienation in an area where the statute itself permits transfer with the prior permission of the competent Revenue Officer. 25 Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.04.2025, insofar as it rejects the petitioners' application solely on the ground that no benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe has been demonstrated, reflects an erroneous approach to the scope of Section 165(6) of the Code. The Collector was required to determine the petitioners' request within the precise statutory parameters and by recording a finding on the legal permissibility of the proposed alienation. Since the impugned order does not disclose such consideration and proceeds on an additional ground not shown to be a statutory requirement, the same cannot be sustained in its present form. 26 When a permission was granted by Collector/Additional Collector under Section 165 (6) (ii) of the Code for sale of land which resulted in execution of a registered sale deed was challenged by 16 the State of Madhya Pradesh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dinesh Kumar and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 754, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that Collector/Additional Collector has powers to grant permission by reasons recorded in their permission. Relevant paragraphs 8 and 11, are extracted hereinbelow:- “8. Section 165(6) specifically refers to the ‘Rights of transfer’, obviously of landowners, wherein sub-section (6) deals with the lands belonging to the members of the indigenous tribes (referred to in the Statue as ‘aboriginal’, in the alternative referred as ‘indigenous’ by us in this judgment). Sub-section (6) of Section 165 has two limbs, in clause (i) and clause (ii). Clause (i) provides a blanket prohibition in so far as the transfer of lands situated in an area predominantly inhabited by indigenous tribes, as notified by the Government, owned by a person belonging to that indigenous tribe, to persons other than that of the specific indigenous tribe. This does not apply in the instant case, since admittedly the land is not situated in a notified area in Ratlam District as seen from Annexure A-1, produced along with the counter affidavit of the appellant filed pursuant to order dated 20.03.2025. In the district of Ratlam the notification applies only to two Tehsils, namely Sailan and Bhajna. It is also an admitted 17 position that respondent Nos. 2 to 5, the land owners, who made the sale, are members of an indigenous tribe, enabled to transfer the lands in their ownership, situated in areas not covered by the Government notification as stipulated in Clause (i), but only with the prior permission of a revenue officer not below the rank of Collector; which permission also has to be recorded in writing. 11. In this context, we must consider the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the State that sub-section (6-c) has not been complied with, which consideration requires the above provision to be extracted, which reads thus:— “(6-c) The Collector shall in passing an order under sub-section (6-a) granting or refusing to grant permission or under sub-section (6-b) ratifying or refusing to ratify the transaction shall have due regard to the following:— (i) whether or not the person to whom land is being transferred is a resident of the Scheduled Area; (ii) the purpose to which land shall be or is likely to be used after the transfer; (iii) whether the transfer serves, or is likely to serve or prejudice the social, cultural and economic interest of the residents of the Scheduled Area; 18 (iv) whether the consideration paid is adequate; (v) whether the transaction is spurious or benami; and (vi) such other matters as may be prescribed. The decision of the Collector granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub- section (6-a) or ratifying or refusing to ratify the transaction of transfer under sub-section (6-b), shall be final, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub- section,- (a) “Scheduled Area” means any area declared to be a Scheduled Area within the State of Madhya Pradesh under paragraph 6 of the Fifth Scheduled to the Constitution of India; (b) the burden of proving that the transfer was not spurious, fictitious or benami shall lie on the person who claims such transfer to be valid.” 27 If the present case is examined in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the subject land is situated at Village Dasharma, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G., and the petitioner No.1 is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The land bearing Khasra No.736 admeasuring 0.154 hectare, and Khasra 19 No.738/1, admeasuring 0.142 hectare, total Area 0.296 hectare situated at Village Dasharma, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.), was diverted from agricultural to commercial use vide order dated 18.09.2020 and thereafter leased to respondent No.2 for establishment of a petrol pump. The question, therefore, has to be examined in the backdrop of the nature and use of the subject land and the statutory requirements governing its proposed alienation. 28 From the perusal of the application submitted by the petitioners seeking permission to sell the subject land, it transpires that petitioner No.1 sought to alienate the land in favour of petitioner No.2. The petitioners approached the competent authority for obtaining permission for such alienation and, when the sale deed was not registered for want of such permission, they had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1042/2025. This Court, vide order dated 21.02.2025, directed the Collector to consider and decide the petitioners' application. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 rejecting the application principally on the ground that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe from the proposed transaction. 29 From the material available on record, it is also evident that the subject land had already been diverted for commercial purposes 20 vide order dated 18.09.2020 and was thereafter leased to respondent No.2 for establishment and running of a petrol pump. Thus, the character and use of the land had already undergone a change from agricultural to commercial use. The Collector, while rejecting the petitioners' application, has not demonstrated any specific statutory prohibition against the proposed alienation arising merely from the fact that petitioner No.1 belongs to the Scheduled Tribe. The impugned order, therefore, was required to be examined in the context of the actual nature and status of the subject land as well as the true scope of the provisions invoked by the Collector. 30 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the Collector, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, has committed an error in rejecting the petitioners' application on the ground that no benefit accruing to a member of the Scheduled Tribe had been demonstrated. A plain reading of Section 165(6) of the Code does not contemplate such a vague or additional condition as an independent ground for refusing permission for alienation. The competent authority was required to examine the application strictly within the parameters of the statutory provision and to record a specific finding as to whether the proposed transaction was prohibited under the Code. 31 It is further evident from the record that petitioner No.1 had sought permission for alienation of the subject land after its diversion for 21 commercial purposes and after the land had been leased to respondent No.2 for establishment of a petrol pump. The earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1042/2025 required the Collector to consider the petitioners' application in accordance with law. However, instead of examining the petitioners' claim on the touchstone of the precise statutory requirements, the Collector rejected the application on the ground that no benefit to a member of the Scheduled Tribe had been shown, without recording a finding as to the specific statutory provision which prohibited the proposed alienation. 32 The object of Section 165(6) is undoubtedly to protect members of the Scheduled Tribes from exploitation and distress alienation of their land. However, such protective provision cannot be interpreted in a manner which permits the competent authority to impose restrictions or conditions which are not contemplated by the statute itself. The discretion vested in the Collector is required to be exercised reasonably, within the four corners of the statutory scheme and upon proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 33 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Collector, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) is hereby set aside/quashed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Collector/competent authority to reconsider the petitioners' application afresh in 22 accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, particularly with regard to the nature and status of the subject land, its diversion for commercial purposes, the proposed alienation, the applicability and true scope of Section 165(6) of the Code, and the law governing alienation of land belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The competent authority shall afford due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 34 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/-d/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh