1. Impugning legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 26-5-2005 passed by the Board of Revenue by which the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order of the Commissioner setting aside the sale made by the original holders in favour of the petitioners and vesting the land in favour of the Government finding that the sale made by the original holders of the land in favour of the petitioners is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 165(7)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code of 1959'), the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

2. In W.P.No.4624/2005 (Tilak Nath v. State of Chhattisgarh and six others) and likewise also in W.P.No.5076/2005 (Ramlal v. State of Chhattisgarh and five others), similar orders have been passed by the Board of Revenue which have been impugned therein and since both the cases involve common question of fact and law they were clubbed together, heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

3. Essential facts required to be noticed for adjudication of the instant writ petitions are as under: -

(3.1) In W.P.No.5076/2005, 10 acres of land situate at Village Nevta, Tahsil Kondagaon, Khasra No.1/100 was allotted on Government lease to Rajman Kalar on 19-8-1968. He sold the said land to Ramlal Koshta on 29-9-1975 who in turn sold it to Tilaknath Koshta on 30-12-1980 and in the year 1986 Tilaknath Koshta sold it to Jankibai, wife of Raghunath, and finally, Jankibai again sold the said land to Ramlal Koshta on 10-11-1989. No permission was taken from the competent authority under the provisions contained in Section 165(7)(b) of the Code of 1959 for all these transactions.

(3.2) In W.P.No.4624/2005, 10 acres of land situate at Village Nevta, Patwari Halka No.32, Tahsil Kondagaon, bearing Khasra No.1/106 was granted on Government lease to Sundar Koshta on 19-8-1968 and upon his death, his wife Mehatreen sold the land to petitioner Tilak Nath on 19-1-1990 and no permission was obtained from the Collector as provided in Section 165(7)(b) of the Code of 1959.

4. It was brought to the notice of the Commissioner that the said lands have been sold in violation of Section 165(7)(b) of the Code of 1959 by the original persons to whom the lands were allotted on Government lease, and also in violation of Section 158 of the Code of 1959. Suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner and the Commissioner by its order dated 29-1-1998, held that the lands in dispute are recorded in revenue records as bade jhad ka jangal and reserved for nistari jangal, and the said lands have been allotted in violation of the provisions contained in Section 158(3) as well as Section 165(7)(b) of the Code of 1959 and therefore, the sale made by the original allottees in favour of the petitioners is null and void and thus, declared the sale as void and vested the suit lands in favour of the State.

5. The petitioners, aggrieved in both the cases, preferred revisions before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue concurred with the findings of the learned Commissioner and dismissed the revision petitions clearly holding that transfer made by the original allotttees is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 165(7)(b) of the Code of 1959 in addition to clause 7 of the allotment order as well as such transfer was barred under the provisions contained in Section 158(3) of the Code of 1959 as within ten years from the date of allotment, transfer could not have been made by the original alloottee. Feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the orders of the Commissioner, these two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners stating inter alia that the orders passed by the Commissioner declaring the sale deeds as null and void and vesting the lands in favour of the Government as affirmed by the Board of Revenue, are bad in law.

6. Return has been filed by the State in both the writ petitions stating inter alia t