C A V Order

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

1. Appellant by this writ appeal has questioned the correctness and sustainability of impugned order dated 03.10.2017 passed in W.P. No. 850 of 2000, where by learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no illegality in the order of Commissioner warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ appeal are that Lachhinder, father of appellants purchased land bearing No. 33, 42, 51/8, 58, total area 8.30 acres situated in village Chopawand, R.I. Circle Kondagaon, Tahsil Kondagaon from one Pilu S/o Ayatu Gond, a tribal person, vide registered sale deed dated 02.05.1967. After coming into force of provisions under Section 170B of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (Earlier M.P. Land Revenue Code) (hereinafter referred to as the “the Code of 1959”), father of appellants/petitioners submitted details of his possession over the land originally recorded in the name of a person belonging to scheduled tribe community. The Competent Authority i.e. Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), issued notice. As the seller remained absent, therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte. Father of Appellant/petitioner herein also not produced any document and consequently the proceedings initiated based on purchaser’s application was dismissed by the S.D.O.(R). The Additional Collector upon receiving direction issued by the Collector initiated suo-motu revision proceedings in the year 1993 with respect to transfer of lands by members of scheduled tribe community. Additional Collector vide order dated 18.10.1993 ordered for reversion of land in favour of tribal person (seller). Order of Collector was challenged further in a revision before Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, which came to be allowed on 22.08.1996, considering that the finding recorded by SDO(R) that both the parties have not taken any interest in the proceedings for closing the case and remitted back the case to S.D.O.(R) for deciding the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. After remand, S.D.O.(R) came to conclusion that transfer of land by tribal to non-tribal was not bonafide and ordered for reversion of land in favour of tribal person. Order of S.D.O.(R) dated 29.07.1998 was again challenged before Collector in an appeal, which came to be allowed and the order of S.D.O(R) was set-aside vide order dated 29.06.1999. The legal representatives of seller of land preferred revision before the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, which came to be allowed on 25.11.1999 restoring the order of S.D.O.(R) dated 29.07.1998 and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur. The order of Commissioner was challenged in writ petition.

3. The writ Court after discussing merits of the case, dismissed the writ petition holding that the order passed by Commissioner recording finding that transaction was not bonafide does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India .

4. Learned counsel for respondents raised an objection of maintainability of writ appeal referring to proviso to Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (in short 'the Act, 2006”). He contended that under proviso to Section (2) of Act, 2006, appeal against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is barred.

5. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would submit that by an order passed by the revenue Court, appellants are deprived of their property, which is a fundamental right. Initially writ petition was filed under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India both, but without there being any order of the Court or any correction made by appellants, the words “226” mentioned in the heading of the writ petition was circled by red p