1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.1998 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Shahdol (Camp Beohari) in Civil Suit No. 8A/97, whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an area of 1.537 hectare (3.80 acres) of Khasra No. 684 and 1.886 hectare (4.66 acres) of Khasra No. 686 situated at Village Vansukli, Tahsil Jaising Nagar of District Shahdol was Patta land of Bharosa and Dadan, sons of Charni. Ex. P-6 is Patta of Khasra No. 684 and 686, by which their names have been recorded as Bhumiswami over the said land. Appellant Rammilan is son of Bharosa. On 2.10.1975, the land was mutated in the name of Bharosa and Khillu S/o Dadan. As per the averments made in the plaint, the father of appellant Bharosa died somewhere in 1980. After the death of Bharosa, the land was divided in two shares. Half share had gone to the appellant and half share had gone to Khillu S/o Dadan. It is alleged that the partition between Bharosa and Dadan had taken place some 30 years back prior to the date of institution of the suit. Appellant's father Bharosa settled at Village Bhalu Mahuatola, Mauja Vansukli and Patta over an area of one acre in Khasra No. 685/1 and two acres in Khasra No. 770/2 was granted to him. He constructed his house and well over an area of one acre of Khasra No. 685/1.

3. The appellant filed a suit for declaration to declare him as the owner and title holder in respect of half portion of Khasra No. 684, area 4.66 acres and 4.66 acres of Khasra 686 and 0.30 acres of Khasra No. 685/1 alongwith house and well as per the plaint map (Schedule A) on the ground that sale deed dated 17.8.1977 (Ex. D-1) executed by his father Bharosa in favour of respondent No.2 Mahanta and one Shyamlal for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- be declared as void and ineffective on the allegations that the appellant's father deceased Bharosa was Bhumiswarni and after his death, the appellant-plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the said suit land. The appellant is "Panika" by caste, which is Aboriginal Tribe as per the Notification issued under section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Code"). The respondent No.2 - Mahanta and Shyamlal are Scheduled Caste (Harijan) not included in the list of aboriginal tribes and suit land has been illegally usurped by them. The transfer has been made in contravention of section 165 (6) of the Code. The sale deed executed on 17.8.1997 in favour of defendant No.2 and Shyamlal is void ab initio as the same was executed without obtaining prior permission from Collector Shahdol and he be declared as the owner and title holder over the suit property and possession taken by the defendant be ordered to be restored. The appellant also prayed for mesne profit @ Rs.1,000/- per annum.

4. The defendants No.2, 4 to 8, filed their joint written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. In Para 1, they admitted that they are Harijan by Caste. In Para 4, they admitted that the plaintiff is aboriginal. In Para 6 and 22, they admitted that Bharosa and Dadan were Bhumiswami of Khasra Numbers 684 and 686 and contended that Bharosa during the lifetime executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and Shyamlal. In Para 7, it is contended that Bharosa died in the year 1980. It is also contended that the defendant No. l-Khillu alias Raghunath filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 170 (B) of the Code, which was dismissed on 29.8.1989. Thereafter, they filed a revision before the Collector vide Revision No. 11/90-91, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.12.1992 on the ground that under section 170 (B) of the Code, the Revenue Officers are having jurisdiction to examine the matter and inquiry was made by the SDO and after inquiry, the SDO vide order dated 30.11.1984 rejected the application and therefore the second applicati