ORDER :

1. In WP(227)-490, 488, 493 and 485 of 2012, respective respondents have not been represented even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round.

2. In WP(227)-491, 518 and 519 of 2012, there is no representation on behalf of respective respondents though served.

3. These cases were earlier listed on 09.03.2022. As there was no representation on behalf of respondents even when the case is called in the second round, cases were adjourned for the next week. Again these petitions came up for hearing on 16.03.2022. On the said date also no one appeared on behalf of respondents in both the rounds of call of the case. Again cases were adjourned for today. Today also no one appeared on behalf of respondents in both the rounds.

4. Challenge in these writ petitions is to impugned orders passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short, ‘Board of Revenue’) allowing applications under Section 8 r/w 165(6)(ii) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereafter referred to as ‘Code of 1959’), filed by respective respondents/applicants, granting permission for sale of immovable property in name of Pankaj Beriwal (No Tribal person) under Section 165(6)(ii) and 165(7) of Code of 1959.

5. Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the State/petitioners would submit that private respondents in these writ petitions are members of Scheduled Tribe (ST) Community. Under provisions of Code of 1959, if any person belonging to ST Community wants to transfer his/her land by way of sale, then, he/she is required to take prior permission from the Collector as provided under 165(6)(ii) of the Code of 1959. The competent authority prescribed under aforementioned provision is Collector. When under the Code of 1959, Collector is vested with the jurisdiction to grant permission for sale of land to Tribal persons, then, it is the Collector, who only can exercise powers of granting permission and no other authority can grant permission, though it may be the Board of Revenue. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon judgment passed in case of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Shauki Lal in WP(227)-7896 of 2011 and other connected matters.

6. Question arises for consideration of this Court in all these writ petitions is that whether Board of Revenue justified in granting permission for sale of land under Section 165(6)(ii) and 165(7) of the Code of 1959, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Code. Perusal of applications filed before Board of Revenue by respective respondents would show that applications are filed under Section 8 r/w Section 165(6)(ii) {wrongly mentioned as 165(6)(2)} of the Code of 1959, pleading therein that they entered into an agreement for sale of their land, details of which are mentioned therein in each of applications. It is also pleaded that when they visited Office of Sub-Registrar, they were informed that they are required to seek prior permission from the Collector, because they belong to ST community. Even the Patwari has refused to provide 22 point (sale particulars) stating that unless and until they bring permission for sale of their land from the Collector, he will not be able to provide 22 point (sale particulars). From the pleading in application filed before Board of Revenue, it is apparent that private respondents are aware of the fact that land owned by them can be transferred only after taking prior permission of the Collector. They directly filed applications before the Board of Revenue under Section 8 of the Code 1959, seeking permission for transfer of their land by way of sale in terms of 165(6)(ii) of the Code of 1959.

7. Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to glance the relevant provision under the Code of 1959. Under Section 2(d) of the Code, ‘Board’ is defined, which reads as under:

Section 2(d) “Board” means the Board of Revenue constituted under Section 3.”

8. Section 3 of the Code 1959 is extracted below for ready reference, which reads a