1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 17-10-2012 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, in revision No.463/A-23/2007-2008 (Shri Banshilal & Another v. Smt. Ramkunwar & others).

3. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the land bearing khasra Nos.759 area 0.32 acres, khasra No.760 area 1.00 acre and khasra No.761/2 area 0.49 acre total area 1.81 acres was given by the grandmother of the revisionists (respondents No.1 & 2 herein) namely; Bundri Bai to the father of the defendants No.1 & 2 (petitioner & respondent No.3 herein) namely; Bhagauram for earning his livelihood, however, the said Bhagauram in a fraudulent manner mutated the name in his favour and thereafter, he sold the land in question to the husband of the petitioner namely; Reshamlal Chandra.

4. Being aggrieved, Ganeshi Bai (mother of the respondents No. 1 & 2 herein), daughter of Munshir Gond & Bundri Bai filed an application under Section 170-B of the MP/CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code, 1959") before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakti (for short "the SDO"), which was registered as revenue Case No.338/A-23/96-97 (Ganeshi Bai v. Ramkunwar). The SDO by order dated 11-9-1997 (Annexure - P/6) held that the transaction of the land in question as void and the same be restored to the legal heirs' of the earlier owner, who happen to be the aboriginal tribe.

5. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Additional Collector, being appeal No.377/A-23/1996-97 (Ramkunwar Vs. Ganeshi Bai & Others). In appeal, the Additional Collector by order dated 29-1-1998 (Annexure –P/7) set aside the order of SDO holding that the transfer between the tribal and non-tribal was before the date of 2-10-1959 and, as such, the land transfer dated 10-4-1943 was bona fide. Against the order passed by the Additional Collector, the legal heirs of Ganeshi Bai preferred revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 17-10-2012, allowed the revision by maintaining the order passed by the SDO and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. Thus, this petition.

6. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the sale deed was executed on 10-4-1943 and the transaction was made before the Code, 1959 came into existence, in the light of decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Balvant Rai Vs. Collector, Jhabua & Others 1988 RN 169 the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 is not attracted.

7. On the other hand, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Ajit Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, submits that the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 does not indicate that the land, which has been transferred prior to coming into force of the Code, 1959, the provisions of Section 170-B will not be attracted. The judgment rendered in Balvant Rail (supra) is not based on proper merit and construction of the provisions of Section 170-B.

8. The question of law involved is whether the transaction of transfer of land belonging to the aboriginal tribe prior to coming into force of the provisions of the Code, 1959 cannot be examined under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 ?

9. Section 170-B of the Code, 1959 was introduced by M.P. Act No.15 of 1980 (w.e.f. 24-10-1980), which reads as under:

"170-B. Reversion of land of members of aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud.-(1) Every person who on the date of commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1980) is in possession of agricultural land which belonged to a member of a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165 between the period commending on the 2nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 shall, wi