1. The substantial questions of law formulated and to be answered in this second appeal are as under:"

(i) Whether both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs' suit is hit by Section 158(3) as well as Section 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (for short "the Code") ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land from one Kaji Abdul on 11/03/1988, whereas Section 158(3) as well as Section 165 (7-b) of the Code came into force from 28/10/1992?

(ii) Whether both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs holing that alienation without permission of the Collector as contained in Section 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (in short 'Code') is void holding Section 165(7-b) of the Code to be mandatory in nature?"

2. In order to answer the afore-stated substantial questions of law, required facts in nutshell, are as under:

2.1 The plaintiffs commenced in action for declaration of their title and possession stating inter alia that they are title holder of land bearing Khasra No. 26/9 area 5.00 Acres and the order of Additional Collector dated 24/01/1994 declaring the order of settlement in favour of the erstwhile owner Shri Kaji Abdul is bad in law and in alternative decree for possession be also granted.

2.2 It was further pleaded that the scheduled land was settled in favour of Shri Kaji Abdul son of Kaji Abdul Kadar by Tahsildar, Kondagaon in the year 1984-85 on the recommendation of 20 Points Program Committee as Shri Kaji Abdul was landless person and said Shri Kaji Abdul erstwhile owner sold the land to the plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 11/03/1988. The aforesaid sale deed was declared void by Additional Collector by its order dated 24/01/1994 holding that such a transfer in violation of Section 165 (7-b) of the Code is void. It is pertinent to mention herein that earlier civil suit filed by Mohan Bhai Patel was dismissed 'as barred by limitation, but it has been held to be within limitation by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, on challenge made by late Shri Patel thereafter the civil suit went for full trial.

2.3 The defendants/State filed their written statement stating inter alia and taking a principal defence that the land was settled in favour of Shri Kaji Abdul on 10/07/1985 as a lessee under the provision of revenue book circular and he being the holder of the land from the State Government, not entitled to transfer without permission of the Collector in view of the provision contained in Section 165 (7-b) of the Code and alienation made on 11/03/1988 within two years and four months without permission of the Collector is void therefore, the Additional Collector after hearing', the said grantee revoked the Patta granted in his favour by order dated 24/01/1994 and declared the transfer void, as such, suit deserves to be dismissed.

2.4 The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 12/07/2000 dismissed the suit finding inter alia that the land was settled in favour of Shri Kaji Abdul by order of the Revenue Officer dated 10/07/1985 and therefore, by virtue of provision contained in Section 165(7-b) of the Code, land could not have been transferred to the Mohan Bhai Patel, husband of plaintiff No.1 without permission in writing by the Collector therefore, the Additional Collector has declared the alienation null and void by order dated 24/01/1994 and dismissed the suit.

2.5 The First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs.

2.6 Impugning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the judgment and decree dated 14/09/2001 passed by First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 46-A/2000, the second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs, which has been admitted for final hearing on two substantial questions of law as stated in forgoing paragraph.

3. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned counsel appearing for t