T.P. Sharma, J.

1. This reference has been made by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) under Rule 32 (2) (ii) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. Vide order dated 3-9-2014, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has directed to place the reference before this Bench to answer the following referred question of law:

"Whether the provision of Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 inserted vide M.P. Amendment Act No.15 of 1980 with effect from 24-12-1980, are applicable in respect of transactions prior to commencement of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, involving transfer / acquisition of right by a non-tribal over a land which, before such acquisition of title or interest or transfer, belonged to a member of tribe who has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub section (6) of Section 165 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959?”

2. Scope of application of the provisions contained in Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') relating to the period of its application was first considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra) in the case of Parwati Bai and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, W.P.No.1739/1997 (decided on 2-2-2010) wherein on consideration of rulings of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the cases of Roopchand v. Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior and others, 1995 RN 184 and Chandrabhan Singh and others v. Banspati Kalar and others, 1998 RN 32 it was held that Section 170-B of the Code has no application to transaction entered prior to 2-10-1959. Later another Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri) in the case of Smt. Ramkunwar v. Banshilal and others, 2013(2) CG.L.R.W. 76 held that the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code would also apply to transaction done prior to 2-10-1959.

3. The learned Single Judge making the reference (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) took view that the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code have no application relating to transaction made before 2-10-1959, and in the light of aforesaid two contrary views taken by coordinate Benches, formulating the question directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice with a recommendation to place it before a Bench of two Judges for decision.

4. The learned Advocate General and counsel for the parties heard and records of the writ petition perused.

5. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that the language of Section 170-B of the Code is unambiguous and specific period of its application i.e. the period commencing on 2-10-1959 and ending on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act of 1980 i.e. 24-10-1980 has been mentioned in Section 170-B of the Code. Although the provision is a beneficial provision to the member of Scheduled Tribe, but in absence of legislation its application cannot be considered as retrospective even prior to the Act i.e. 2-10-1959 mentioned in Section 170-B of the Code. It is contended that a well recognized rule of interpretation is that in absence of express words or appropriate language from which retrospectivity may be inferred, legislations take effect from the date they are issued and not from any prior date. In the present case, period of application of the amendment has already been mentioned in the amending act, therefore the amending act would be operative for the transaction made between 2-10-1959 till 24-10-1980 and not prior to 2-10-1959.

6. To buttress his contentions, the learned Advocate General placed reliance in the matter of Sri Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 1471 in which in case of amendment in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control Order, 1963, the Supreme Court has held that in absence of express words or appropriate language specifying the application of amendment, retrospective notificatio