CAV Order

1. In WP227 126 of 2013, respondent-1 Ghasiya Ram is shown to be served, but there is no representation on his behalf; respondent-2 Sushil Kumar Agrawal is represented by an Advocate, but when the case is taken up for hearing, no one appeared on his behalf.

2. 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, case was adjourned for the next week.

3. These two petitions came up for hearing again 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 case was adjourned. Today also no one appeared on behalf of respondents in both the rounds.

4. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the impugned orders dated 22.10.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bench at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby Board of Revenue, Bilaspur allowing the applications filed by private respondents under Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Code of 1959’), granted permission for transfer of land in question in favour of respondent-2 under Section 165 (6)

and 165 (7) of the Code of 1959.

5. Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned State Counsel would submit that private respondents have filed an application under Section 8 of the Code of 1959, seeking direction to respondent-3/Dy Registrar, Raigarh for registering sale deed without prior permission of the Collector. Learned counsel submits that Board of Revenue, while considering the application under Section 8 of the Code of 1959, could not accord permission to transfer the land under Section 165(6) and 165(7) of the Code of 1959, as the jurisdiction under aforementioned provision to grant permission is vested with the Collector and other superior Revenue Officer. Order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is per se illegal. In support of his contention he places reliance upon judgment dated 21.02.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition(227)-7896 of 2011 and other connected cases. He submits that as the Board of Revenue was not having jurisdiction to grant permission under Section 165(6) and 165(7) of the Code of 1959, impugned orders are void hence they be set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/State. Perused documents placed along with writ petition.

7. Perusal of Annexure P2 would show that these are applications filed by private respondents under Section 8 of the Code of 1959, pleading therein that when they went for execution of sale deed before NA3/Dy Registrar, Raigarh., they were asked to bring permission of Collector for transfer of their immovable property/land. Upon further seeking clarification from Office of Dy Registrar, it is informed that the Collector has imposed ban upon transfer of property of land owned by Khadiya caste. Applicants therein/private respondents do not belong to Schedule Tribe community. Hence, prior permission is not required, and prayed that direction be issued to Dy Registrar, Raigarh for getting the sale deed registered by the land owned by those applicants/private respondents.

8. Perusal of impugned order Annexure P1 would show that Board of Revenue in Para-7 of its order even after recording that Khadiya caste is not included in list of Scheduled Tribe and thereafter, recorded that permission is granted to transfer of land by applicants/private respondents in favour of one Susheel Kumar Agrawal under Section 165(6) and 165(7) of the Code of 1959. Under Scheme of the Code, Board of Revenue is not having jurisdiction to grant permission either under Section 165(6) or 165(7) of Code of 1959.

9. 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.”

10. Section 3 of the Code 1959 is extracted below for ready reference, which reads as under:

Sect