Order on Board

25.02.2025

1. The petitioners purchased a parcel of land admeasuring 0.34 hectares bearing Khasra No.235/3 said to be situated in Village Kalipur of Jagdalpur Block, District Jagdalpur from respondent No.2 – Rukmani Sori vide registered sale deed dated 13-6-2010.

Before purchasing the land, respondent No. 2 applied for diversion of the use and purpose of the land by moving an application before the Competent Authority under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In short “the Code”). In the diversion proceedings, an order was passed in the year 2008-09 allowing the application and permitting the diversion of land from agricultural to residential purposes. According to the petitioners, the land is situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur and therefore, situated in an urban area and not in a non-urban area. The petitioners applied to the Additional Collector for permission to sell the land, and the Additional Collector granted the permission by an order dated 12-05-2010.

2. Vide order dated 31-08-2010, the State Government directed the Commissioner to identify the cases of legal transactions of the sale involving land belonging to the aboriginal tribes in the notified area.

3. The Commissioner in exercise of the power of suo moto revision, passed the impugned order on 30-01-2012 setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector on 12-05-2010 and remanding the matter to the Collector for the decision afresh. The order passed by the Commissioner was challenged by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue by filing Case No. RN/01/R/A- 21/197/2012. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 7.3.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the order of the Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner dated 30.1.2012 and the order of the Board of Revenue dated

7.3.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to challenge the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Commissioner in the exercise of the power of suo moto revision by contending that the Commissioner exceeded its jurisdiction invoking its power of suo moto revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the case of an appealable order, the power of suo motu revision cannot be invoked by the revisional authority under Section 50 of the Code. The order granting permission to sell the land passed by the Additional Collector on 12-05-2010 was appealable and therefore, the power of suo moto revision cannot be invoked. It is then contended that the power of revision has been exercised after a long delay of one year. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the lands have been brought within the local limits of the Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur and are no longer Abadi lands within the meaning assigned to it under the Code. He also submits that under a valid proceeding for diversion of land drawn under Section 172 of the Code on the application of the petitioners, an order was passed by the Competent Authority granting permission for diversion. Once the land is diverted and the land is situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, the bar against the transfer of interest by Bhumiswami belonging to the aboriginal tribe is no longer applicable under Section 165(6)(i) of the Code, even in areas which have been notified as predominately inhabited by aboriginal tribes, by way of notification under 165(6)(i) of the Code. He further argues that once the land is diverted and ceases to be used for agricultural purposes, the bar under sub-Section 6 of

Section 165 of the Code ceases to apply. Further submission is that the Commissioner had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing further enquiry to be made by the Additional Collector, even though, no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order as to why the order of diversion was not found to be in accordance with law. It is stated tha