1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner invokes supervisory jurisdiction of this Court questioning the correctness and validity of revisional order dated 30/08/12 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja, Division - Ambikapur by which petitioner's revision against order dated 30/05/07 passed by the Collector, Ramanujganj has been dismissed.

2. The relevant factual matrix giving rise to this petition are stated infra-Respondents filed an application purporting to be under Section l70-B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Ramanujganj for direction to return land from the petitioner alleging that Munga Sao, father of the petitioner fraudulently got a sale deed executed in favour of Sukni Devi by their father late Bucha. It was alleged that the transaction was fraudulently intended to deprive their fattier, a tribe, from his property without there being any permission from the Collector as required under Section 165 (6) of the Code. The application was moved in the year 2005.

After making enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order of return of land on 30/03/05 on the findings that the seller Bucha was a tribe and sale deed was executed on 04/07/85 by late Bucha in favour of Sukni Devi which was a benami transaction, Munga being the ostensible owner. This was done without obtaining permission of the Collector, though the transaction was between the non-tribe and a tribe, thus, the transaction being fraudulent in nature.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector which was dismissed, against which, revision was preferred, though unsuccessfully. Thus, giving rise to instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Collector as well as the Commissioner exceeded their jurisdiction in directing return of land and affirmation thereof that late Bucha belonged to 'Nagesia' tribe. The Sub-Divisional Officer, without authority of law held that 'Kissan' is a sub-caste of notified tribe 'Nagesia'. Proceeding on this erroneous assumption of law and fact, the Sub-Divisional Officer held the tram, action fraudulent on the ground that the transaction of sale required permission of the Collector as required under Section 165 (6) of the Code. The Collector affirmed the order by holding that 'Kissan' was merely a title and infact, 'Kissan' is nothing but 'Nagesia'. Therefore, 'Kissan' and 'Nagesia' are one and the same. On this reasoning, the Collector also held that the transaction being one between a tribe and a non-tribe, it required permission of the Collector under Section 165 of the Code.

4. He further contended that the revisional authority though held that 'kissan' cannot be treated as sub-caste of 'Nagesia' and included as part of 'Nagesia', without there being any such stipulation in the notification of the scheduled tribes, committed apparent illegality in holding-that the old transaction cannot be re-opened in view of State Government's circular dated 04/02/11 (Annexure P/5). According to him, it was not permissible under the law to hold 'Kissan' as sub-caste or part of scheduled tribe 'Nagesia' by any process of reasoning. This is exclusively within the domain of the parliament to include, exclude or amend the notification declaring the tribe under the constitutional scheme. Therefore, the order of return of land has been passed and affirmed in excess of jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the community known as 'Kissan' is nothing but 'Nagesia' tribe only. The Revenue Courts traced the history as to how title 'Kissan' came to be attached to members of 'Nagesia' tribe in the tribal areas of Jashpur district. By such a reasoning, notified list of scheduled tribe, in relation to the State of Chhattisgarh has neither been amended nor modified but all tha