1 2026:CGHC:17408-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 457 of 2019 1 - Smt. Kamla Devi Wd/o Bhupal Bahadur Singh Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Mrinalika Singh D/o Late Bhupal Bahadur Singh Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Ramdayal (Died) Through Lr's (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 06- 08-2024) 1.1 - (A) Manohar Lal Sidar Aged About 45 Years S/o Late Shri Ramdayal, R/o Village Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Pawan Sidar Aged About 40 Years S/o Late Shri Ramdayal, R/o Village Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Mantralaya, D.K.S. Building Raipur, District Raipur , Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Collector Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 6 - Khuluram Patel S/o Buddhharam Marar Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.04.20 17:32:17 +0530 2 7 - Kaushal S/o Ganesh Ram Gond Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Sitaram (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 06-08- 2024) 8.1 - (A) Vijay Aged About 47 Years S/o Late Sitaram, R/o Village Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8.2 - (B) Chonko Aged About 40 Years S/o Late Sitaram, R/o Village Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Givindram (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 06- 08-2024) 9.1 - (A) Prakash Patel S/o Late Givindram Aged About 45 Years 9.2 - (B) Pankaj Mani Patel S/o Late Givindram Aged About 41 Years 9.3 - (C) Smt. Rama Bai W/o Late Givindram Aged About 61 Years 10 - Jitendra Vijay Bahadur Singh S/o Udit Narayan Singh Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11 - Smt. Shanti Kumari Devi Wd/o Udit Narayan Singh (Died Through Lrs) Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.1 - Kamlesh Singh S/o Shri Lal Bhupendra Pratap Singh Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.2 - Aditya Singh D/o Late Shri Lal Bhupendra Pratap Singh Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.3 - Arundati Singh D/o Late Shri Lal Bhupendra Pratap Singh Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.4 - Raj Kumari Singh W/o Late Shri Surendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 11.5 - Vishvendra Singh @ Vikram Singh S/o Late Shri Surendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.6 - Manvendra Vikram Singh S/o Late Shri Surendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.7 - Vijay Laxmi Singh S/o Late Shri Surendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.8 - Raj Laxmi Singh D/o Late Shri Surendra Bahadur Singh Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.9 - Nageshan Devi W/o Late Shri Gajendra Singh Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 11.10 - Adit Singh S/o Late Shri Gajendra Singh Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Mal Kharoda, Tehsil Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 12 - Collector Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr.Pritam Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 5 and 12/State : Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board 4 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pritam Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 and 12. 2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1011 of 2002 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by original respondent No.1/original writ petitioner. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that writ petitioner Ramdayal, by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 22.10.1994, purported to have been executed by predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.5 to 11 and original respondent No.12, namely, Bhupal Bahadur Singh, an aboriginal, acquired valid right, title and interest over the property in question, as described in the alleged sale, situated at village Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4. After the insertion of Section 170-B of the Code on the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Act No.15 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1980), which came into force w.e.f. 24.10.1980, a report was submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mal Kharoda, through Tahsildar Mal Kharoda stating therein that the writ petitioner is in possession over the suit land, however, the Collector's permission is not mentioned in the Sansodhan Panji. Based upon the 5 said information, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mal Kharoda, directing him to furnish the particulars that under what capacity he has come in possession over the land in question, belonging to the aboriginal tribe, else his possession would be deemed to be unauthorised. 5. In reply to the aforesaid notice, it is stated by the writ petitioner that he has come in possession over the suit land on the strength of the registered deed of sale dated 22.10.1994 and since the alleged transaction was made much beyond the period prescribed in Section 170-B of the Code, therefore, the said provision does not get attracted and the proceedings initiated thereunder be dropped. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mal Kharoda, however, vide order dated 10.03.1997 directed for reversion of the land in question on finding that the possession of the writ petitioner is unauthorised over the suit land as the alleged transaction was effected without prior permission of the Collector, as required under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of reversion, an appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner under Section 44 (1) of the Code before the Additional Collector, who in turn, vide its order dated 02.04.1998, reversed the aforesaid order by observing, inter alia, that the alleged transaction made in the year 1994 was much beyond the period prescribed under Section 170-B of the Code, therefore, it is beyond its purview. 7. The aforesaid order was, however, reversed by the Commissioner, 6 Bilaspur vide its order impugned dated 12.04.2002 in Revision preferred by the legal representatives of aboriginal – Bhupal Bahadur Singh under Section 50 of the Code by observing that since the alleged transaction was made in favour of the original writ petitioner without prior permission of the Collector, therefore, his possession cannot be held to be lawful and observed further that although the alleged transaction was made after 24.10.1980, but still the S.D.O. can examine the validity of the alleged sale in exercise of its suo- motu power conferred under Section 170-A of the Code. In consequence, the Commissioner, Bilaspur, has directed for reversion of the land in question to said aboriginal. Being aggrieved by the same, Ramdayal filed writ petition, which was allowed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order passed by the Single Judge is contrary to the facts on record as well as settled principles of law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. Learned Single Judge has failed to consider and apply the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshabo and Others vs. State of M.P. and Others, reported in 1996 RN 175 (SC). The ratio decidendi of the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case, and the failure to follow the same renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. He further submits that the transaction dated 20.10.1994 is clearly in contravention of sub- section (6) of Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Any transfer or alienation of land made in violation of the said provision is void ab initio. The provision being a beneficial piece of 7 legislation enacted to protect the land rights of members of the aboriginal/tribal communities, must be strictly enforced. The exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the competent authority was therefore fully justified and in consonance with the constitutional mandate under Articles 39(b) and 46 of the Constitution of India, read with the Preamble. The findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur were thus legal and ought not to have been interfered with by the Hon’ble Single Judge. He also submits that the sale deed dated 20.10.1994 was executed only by one co-bhumiswami, namely Late Bhupal Bahadur, without the consent or participation of the other co-bhumiswamis. Such a unilateral transaction is void ab initio in the eyes of law. The Single Judge erred in overlooking this fundamental illegality while setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner. He contended that the impugned transaction being without authority of law, the appellants, being legal heirs of the original bhumiswami, are entitled to seek restoration of the land under Section 170 of the Land Revenue Code. The statutory remedy available to the appellants has been unjustly defeated by the impugned order. The Single Judge has failed to appreciate the true scope, object, and intent of Sections 165(6), 170, 170-A, and 170-B of the Land Revenue Code, which are enacted to safeguard the land holdings of vulnerable sections, particularly members of Scheduled Tribes. The impugned order, having been passed in disregard of these provisions, is liable to be quashed. The reasoning adopted by the Single Judge is overly technical and contrary to the beneficial object of the statute. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed 8 and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11.Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has rightly interpreted the scope and applicability of Section 170-B of the Code, particularly with regard to the limited time frame within which the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) is empowered to examine the validity of land transactions. It has been correctly held that the provision governs only those transactions which took place between 02.10.1959 and 24.10.1980, and does not extend to transactions executed thereafter. 12.This Court further concurs with the finding that, although the presumption under Section 170-B(2) of the Code is rebuttable in nature, the jurisdiction of the S.D.O. to conduct an enquiry remains confined strictly to the transactions falling within the aforesaid statutory period. Learned Single Judge has also rightly distinguished the applicability of Section 170-A of the Code and the judgment relied upon by the appellant, holding that the suo motu powers under Section 170-A of the Code cannot be invoked for transactions beyond the prescribed cut-off date, nor can they be used to indirectly expand 9 the scope of Section 170-B of the Code. 13.In view of the above, this Court holds that learned Single Judge has committed no error, either in law or on facts, in allowing the writ petition filed by the original respondent No.1 / writ petitioner. The interpretation adopted is consistent with the legislative intent underlying the provisions of the Code. 14.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 Bablu