The jurisdiction of revenue authorities to review land transactions of aboriginal tribes under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is strictly limited to transactions occurring between 02.10.1959 and 24.10.1980; such powers cannot be extended beyond this period through Section 170-A.

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

16.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Pritam Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 and 12.

2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1011 of 2002 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by original respondent No.1/original writ petitioner.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that writ petitioner Ramdayal, by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 22.10.1994, purported to have been executed by predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.5 to 11 and original respondent No.12, namely, Bhupal Bahadur Singh, an aboriginal, acquired valid right, title and interest over the property in question, as described in the alleged sale, situated at village Mal Kharoda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

4. After the insertion of Section 170 -B of the Code on the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Act No.15 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 1980), which came into force w.e.f. 24.10.1980, a report was submitted by the concerned Revenue Inspector to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mal Kharoda, through Tahsildar Mal Kharoda stating therein that the writ petitioner is in possession over the suit land, however, the Collector's permission is not mentioned in the Sansodhan Panji. Based upon the said information, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mal Kharoda, directing him to furnish the particulars that under what capacity he has come in possession over the land in question, belonging to the aboriginal tribe, else his possession would be deemed to be unauthorised.

5. In reply to the aforesaid notice, it is stated by the writ petitioner that he has come in possession over the suit land on the strength of the registered deed of sale dated 22.10.1994 and since the alleged transaction was made much beyond the period prescribed in Section 170 -B of the Code, therefore, the said provision does not get attracted and the proceedings initiated thereunder be dropped. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mal Kharoda, however, vide order dated 10.03.1997 directed for reversion of the land in question on finding that the possession of the writ petitioner is unauthorised over the suit land as the alleged transaction was effected without prior permission of the Collector, as required under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code.

6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of reversion, an appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner under Section 44 (1) of the Code before the Additional Collector, who in turn, vide its order dated 02.04.1998, reversed the aforesaid order by observing, inter alia, that the alleged transaction made in the year 1994 was much beyond the period prescribed under Section 170 -B of the Code, therefore, it is beyond its purview.

7. The aforesaid order was, however, reversed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur vide its order impugned dated 12.04.2002 in Revision preferred by the legal representatives of aboriginal – Bhupal Bahadur Singh under Section 50 of the Code by observing that since the alleged transaction was made in favour of the original writ petitioner without prior permission of the Collector, therefore, his possession cannot be held to be lawful and observed further that although the alleged transaction was made after 24.10.1980, but still the S.D.O. can examine the validity of the alleged sale in exercise of its suo motu power conferred under Section 170 -A of the Code. In con