Reserved on 12.11.2025 Pronounced on 10.12.2025 Uploaded on 10.12.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1482 of 2012

1 - Padmakar Pandey S/o Lt. Shri Anirudh Pandey, Aged About 71 Years R/o Vill. Badebacheli, Near Telephone Exchange, Post Bacheli, Tehsil Dantewada, Distt. Sough Bastar Dantwada C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of C.G. And Ors S/o Through - Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

2 - The Commissioner Jagdalpur, Division Bastar C.G. , District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

3 - The Collector S.S.A. Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada C.G., District :

Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

4 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Dantewada Distt. South Bastar Dantewada C.G. , District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

5 - Tehsildar Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada C.G. , District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

6 - Kamluram S/o Shri Botiram R/o Village Badebacheli, Tehsil Dantewada C.G. , District :

Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Addl. A. G.

For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate Amicus Curie : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

C A V Order

1. Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, CG in Revision Case No. 59/A-21/ 2010- 11. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner while exercising suo motu jurisdiction under Section 50 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code of 1959”) has set aside the permission granted by the Collector Dantewada, District Dantewada in Revenue Case No.06/A- 21/ 2009-10 dated 30.10.2009 by which it has granted permission to respondent No.6 to sell the property comprised in piece of Khasra No.94/9, 94/10 area 0.28 Acre (Diverted land) (for short “suit property”) situated at Badebacheli Tahsil Dantewada District Dantewada (CG).

2. Fact of the case which emerges from the pleading is that an application was filed by respondent No.6 before the Collector (respondent No.3) under Section 165 of Code of 1959 on 30.08.2008 for the sale of the suit property to the petitioner. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Revenue / respondent No.4 submitted a report dated 23.01.2009. Respondent No.3/ Collector vide an order dated 30.10.2009 granted permission to sell the suit property to petitioner herein. It appears that later on, a sale deed was also executed on 18.11.2009 in respect of the suit property by respondent No.6 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 / the Commissioner registered a suo motu case challenging the grant of permission by the Collector/ respondent No.3. By the impugned order in the suo motu case, the said permission was set aside, challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a non-tribal and respondent No.6 is a tribal. He submits that respondent No.6 wanted to sell the suit property to the petitioner and therefore, he voluntarily moved an application under Section 165 of the Code of 1959 before the Collector / respondent No.3 for permission to sell the suit property. A due enquiry was conducted by respondent No.4 / Sub Divisional Officer and gave a report in favour of respondent No.6. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the Enquiry report, the Collector/respondent No.3 granted the permission. He submits that the entire sale consideration has been paid by the petitioner to respondent No.6 which was for the benefit of respondent No.6 and there is no illegal transaction between respondent No.6 and the petitioner. He submits that the right of respondent No.6 has been duly protected as proper sale consideration was paid. The learned Commissioner/ respondent No.2 in exercising the suo motu revisional jurisdiction, has committed an error of law and fact when the