1. The short question involved in the writ petition is, whether the Board of Revenue has power and jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code') to consider and grant application for permission to sell the land under Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code, in light of the fact that Section 8 of the Code only confers administrative jurisdiction to the Board of Revenue?

2. Pawan Chauhan – respondent No.1 herein is said to have entered into agreement to sale with respondents No. 2 to 7 on 5-6-2010 for purchase of their land situated at Village Bade Atarmuda, Patwari Halka No.13, Tahsil and District Raigarh, total area 0.817 hectare, and thereafter, on 6-10-2010, made an application under Section 8 of the Code before the Board of Revenue stating inter alia that the said sellers – respondents No.2 to 7 belong to Kharia caste and they can sell the land without leave of the Collector and the restriction imposed by the Collector for selling the land is also illegal and therefore permission be granted to sell the land relaxing the ban imposed by the Collector. The Board of Revenue without notice to the State and the Tahsildar as impleaded in the said application, straightway, on 8-10-2010, allowed the application relaxing the ban imposed by the Collector on 7-7-2006 granting permission for sale of land in favour of respondent No.1 under Sections 165(6) & (7) of the Code and also directed furnishing of 22 point information and given direction to the Deputy Registrar for registration of land. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the instant writ petition has been filed questioning that order holding that under Section 8 of the Code, the Board of Revenue does not have any judicial jurisdiction to entertain directly the application under Section 8 and to grant permission under Sections 165(6) & (7) which has been statutorily conferred to the Collector to grant permission. Even otherwise, relaxation against the ban cannot be given in exercise of administrative jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Code, that too without notice to the State and its authorities which is absolutely without jurisdiction and without authority of law, as such, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

3. Mr. Harsh Wardhan Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would submit that respondents No.2 to 7 do not belong to aboriginal caste, they have not been included in the aboriginal caste, therefore, the learned Board of Revenue is absolutely justified in granting the application and no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Board of Revenue in granting permission. He would also submit that powers of superintendence given to the Board under Section 8 of the Code are very wide and are similar to those given to this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. The question for consideration is, whether the power of the Board of Revenue under Section 8 of the Code is akin to the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides as under: -

“227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.—(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may—

(a) call for returns from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising the