Chattisgarh High Court

Paramjit Singh Suri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 September, 2022

AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 541 of 2017
• Paramjit Singh Suri S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Suri, aged about
56 years R/o Village Hatkachora, Jagdalpur District Bastar
(CG).
---- Appellant (Petitioner)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of
Revenue & Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Post & PS Mandir Hasaud, Raipur (CG)
2. Collector, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
3. Nandlal Baghel, aged about 70 years, R/o Village
Khamargaon, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
&
WA No. 556 of 2017
• Paramjit Singh Suri S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Suri, aged about
56 years R/o Village Hatkachora, Jagdalpur District Bastar.
---- Appellant (Petitioner)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of
Revenue & Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Post & PS Mandir Hasaud, Raipur (CG)
2. Collector Jagdalpur (CG).
3. Nandlal Baghel aged about 70 years R/o Village Khamargaon,
Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG)
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants :

Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2: Mrs. Meena Shastri, Additional Advocate General.

For Respondent No.3 : None.

Order reserved on 03/08/2022 Order pronounced on 29/09/2022

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, J

CAV ORDER Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J

1. Both these writ appeals arise out of one and the same

proceedings and therefore, they were heard together and are

decided by this common order.

2. These writ appeals are preferred against the common order

dated 03.11.2017 by which learned Single Judge dismissed

writ petitions filed by appellants herein against the order dated

2.11.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue in Case

No.M/01/R/A-21/88/2013.

3. Facts relevant for disposal of these writ appeals are that

appellants are non-tribe persons residing in village

Hatkachoura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG). They had

purchased land bearing Khasra Nos.79/2, 79/3, 79/5 totalling

2.13 acres from respondent No.3, an aboriginal tribe residing

in village Khamargaon, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG), vide

registered sale deed dated 27.1.2009 after obtaining

permission from the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur on

16.1.2009. The lands purchased are diverted lands, situated

within municipal limits. The Commissioner, Bastar Division,

Jagdalpur suo motu registered Revision Case No.7/A-

21/2011-12 and after hearing the parties, vide order dated

10.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) set aside the permission dated

16.1.2009 granted by the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur

holding that the same was granted without proper analysis of

facts of the case and remanded back the case to the Collector,

District Bastar for reconsideration as per provisions of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the

Code of 1959') and to pass order afresh within a period of two

months, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to all

the interested parties.

On receipt of matter on remand, the Collector

considered an application for grant of permission afresh. After

hearing the parties in the matter, vide order dated 29.4.2013

(Annexure P-8) arrived at a conclusion that the land, which is

subject-matter of application for permission to sell/ transfer of

lands, are owned by an aboriginal tribe in favour of a non-

tribe, situated in scheduled area declared by the State

Government to be predominantly inhabited by aboriginal

tribes, is non-transferable under Section 165 (1) of the Code

of 1959, and accordingly rejected the application as not

maintainable and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (R),

Jagdalpur for reversion of subject land to the seller within

prescribed time frame. The Collector in the order also

proposed for initiating inquiry against the then Tahsildar, Sub-

Divisional Officer (R) and Additional Collector of Jagdalpur.

4. Appellants filed two separate revisions before the Board of

Revenue Chhattisgarh under Sections 8 and 32 of the Code of

1959, one challenging the order of Commissioner, Bastar

Division, Jagdalpur dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) setting

aside the order granting permission and remitting the case

back to the Collector and another challenging the order of the

Collector, Jagdalpur dated 29.4.2013 (Annexure P-8)

dismissing the application for grant of permission. Both these

revisions came to be dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide

order dated 2.11.2015. Aggrieved therewith the appellants filed

two separate writ petitions before the High Court bearing WPC

No.60/2017 & 885/2017. The learned Single Judge,

considering the facts and circumstances of case and

submissions of learned counsel for respective parties,

dismissed both the writ petitions by common order dated

3.11.2017 taking note of the order dated 7.9.2014 passed in

WPC No.3241/2011 between Smt. Neelima Belsariya vs.

State of Chhattisgarh & ors. It is this order which is under

challenge in these writ appeals.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in both appeals

would submit that the Commissioner, Bastar Division,

Jagdalpur erred in exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction

after lapse of about two years. Suo motu revisional jurisdiction

can be invoked within a reasonable period. Reasonable

period has been held to be 'six months'. In the instant case,

the Commissioner had commenced suo motu revisional

proceedings after lapse of more than two years, hence the

order passed by the Commissioner is beyond reasonable

period. The Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge have

not considered the issue of limitation for exercise of suo motu

revisional jurisdiction raised by the appellant. The revenue

authorities, Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge,

erred in holding that subject land is non-transferable ignoring

that the land, subject matter of writ appeal, is a diverted land

situated within municipal area and therefore permission under

Section 165 (6) of the Code of 1959 is not necessary. He

submits that there is no restriction or bar on transfer of

diverted land situated in municipal area owned by an

aboriginal tribe in favour of a non-tribe. Total ban on transfer

by way of sale of the land owned by an aboriginal tribe to non-

tribe person is bad in law. He submits that under clause (3) of

Part-A of 5th Schedule under Article 241 of the Constitution of

India, Hon'ble the Governor of the State has to annually

submit report to the Hon'ble President of India regarding

administration of scheduled areas, but no such report is

forwarded by the Hon'ble Governor of the State of

Chhattisgarh to the President. Since the subject land is

situated within municipal limits, it shall be governed by the

provisions of the municipal law i.e. Chhattisgarh Municipal

Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956'), and not by

the provisions of the Code of 1959 in view of repeal clause

under Section 2 of the Act of 1956. The Board of Revenue as

also the learned Single Judge erred in deciding issue involved

in the case only on the basis of judgment passed in case of

Smt. Neelima Belsariya (supra). He lastly contended that

the Collector by impugned order (Annexure P-8) had in fact

cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of appellants, to

which he is having no jurisdiction while exercising powers

under the provisions of the Code of 1959. Sale deed can be

annulled / cancelled only by the competent civil Court. To

strengthen his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed his

reliance on the judgments rendered in case of Ail Das vs.

Board of Revenue Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior and others,

reported in 1972 SCC Online MP 28; Joint Collector Ranga

Reddy District & another vs. D. Narsingh Rao & ors,

reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695; Satya Pal Anand vs. State of

MP & ors, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 and Gwalior Sugar

Company Limited & another vs. Anil Gupta & ors, reported

in (2012) 12 SCC 19.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State, opposing

the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for appellants,

would submit that land, subject matter of this writ appeal is

situated in Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG), which is

predominantly inhabited by aboriginal tribes. Bastar District is

notified as 'scheduled area'. The land owned by an ab-original

tribe situated within scheduled area is non-transferable to non-

tribe person under Section 165 (6) (i) of the Code of 1959 and

therefore, there was no question of obtaining prior permission

from the Collector. She contended that the Additional

Collector, Jagdalpur while granting permission dated

16.1.2009 did not take note of the provisions of the Code of

1959 in entirety and illegally granted permission. When said

illegality committed by the Additional Collector in granting

permission for transfer of land of an ab-original tribe situated

in notified scheduled area to a non-tribe came to the

knowledge, the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur,

who is superior authority, took cognizance of illegality, suo

motu registered revision case under Section 50 of the Code of

1959 and after issuing notice to the interested parties

including appellants herein, providing opportunity of hearing,

set aside the order granting permission dated 16.1.2009 and

remitted back the case for reconsideration. Therefore, in the

given facts and circumstances of case, the issue of limitation

would not arise.

She contended that under Section 165 of the Code of

1959 the State Government had notified list of castes which

are declared to be 'tribe' within the State of Chhattisgarh and

also notified the list of places and areas which are declared as

'scheduled areas'. In the present case, seller of land in

question belongs to 'Bhadara' caste, which is a notified tribe,

and the land is situated in notified scheduled area.

She further contended that identical issue came up for

consideration before the Division Bench in W.A. No.187/2017,

parties being K.S. Sujeeth vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors, and

the Division Bench taking into consideration provisions

contained in the Code of 1959; Article 244 of the Constitution

of India, writ appeal preferred by a non-tribe purchaser of land

of ab-original tribe situated in scheduled area, dismissed writ

appeal vide order dated 25.3.2019.

7. We have heard learned counsel for respective parties and

perused the record of writ appeal and writ petition as well.

8. Indisputably, the land bearing Khasra Nos.79/2, 79/3 & 79/5

total ad-measuring 2.13 acres is situated in Lal Bahadur

Shastri Ward, village Pakhnaguda, Jagdalpur, District Bastar

(CG). Perusal of the order dated 9.4.2013 passed by the

Collector, District Bastar would show that vide order dated

11.7.2008 the said land has been diverted for its use, other

than agriculture purpose. The Tahsildar, Jagdalpur in his report

dated 30.9.2008 recommended for grant of permission to

transfer / sell the land owned by the tribe to non-tribe person.

The Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Jagdalpur accepted

recommendation of the Tahsildar and forwarded the same to

the Additional Collector vide letter dated 4.10.2008 for grant of

permission. The Additional Collector considering the

recommendation granted permission to sell/transfer of the

land owned by an-aboriginal tribe in the name of non-tribe vide

order dated 16.1.2009. In the aforementioned facts of the

case, submissions of learned counsel for respective parties

are to be considered.

9. In order to appreciate submissions of learned Senior Counsel

for the appellants that subject land is situated within municipal

area and therefore provisions of the Code of 1959 will not

apply, it is necessary for us to first have a look at the relevant

provisions relied upon. Section 2 of the Act of 1956 is

reproduced herein below for ready reference;-

"2. Repeal of Enactment.- (1) On the application of this Act to any city, the municipality of that city shall, save as hereinafter provided, be deemed to have been withdrawn from the operation of the Municipal Laws:

Provided that on the application of this Act to any city under sub-section (3) of Section 1, the authority or any institution if performing the Municipal functions shall cease to perform such functions and all assets and liabilities of such authority or institution shall vest in the Municipal Corporation constituted under this Act. (2) This withdrawal shall not revive any office, authority or thing abolished by the Municipal Law, or affect the validity of anything done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability accrued, before the application of this Act.

(3) Nothing herein contained shall deprive any person of any right to property, or other private right, except as hereinafter provided."

10. Section 2 of the Act of 1956 says that earlier Municipal laws

stand repealed on the application of the Act of 1956. Hence,

the submission of learned Senior Counsel for appellants that

upon coming into force of the Act of 1956, the Code of 1959 is

excluded from its operation on the lands situated within

municipal limits, is not acceptable.

11. Article 244 of the Constitution of India deals with

"administration of scheduled areas and tribal areas". It

envisages that 5th Schedule to Article 244 of the Constitution of

India shall apply to the administration and control of scheduled

areas and scheduled tribes in any State other than the State

of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura & Mizoram. Clause (A) in Part-A

of 5th Scheduled to Article 244 of the Constitution of India

mentions about executive power of the State in scheduled

areas. The then State of Madhya Pradesh issued Notification,

which was published in the Official Gazette in the year 1960,

specifying aboriginal tribes under sub-section (6) of Section

165 of the Code of 1959. The Schedule of aboriginal tribe

under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code of 1959 was

amended from time to time. Relevant portion is extracted

below for ready reference;-

"15. Notifications:

(1) Aboriginal Tribes specified.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of S. 165 of the Code, the State Government has declared the tribes specified in the Schedule below to be aboriginal tribes for the whole of the area to which the said Code applies.-

SCHEDULE

1. Andh

2. Agariya

3. Bhil and Bhilala, which includes Barele and Pateliya

4. Baiga

5. Bharia-Bhumia or Bhuinhar Bhumia, Pando

6. Bhaina

7. Bhattra

8. Bhunjia

9. Binijhwar

10.Birhul or Birher

11.Biar or Biyar

12.Bhumiya, including Bharia and Paliha

13. Bhanwar

14. Damor, Damaria

15. Gond including.-

16. xxxx

17. xxxx

18. xxxx

19. xxxx

20. xxxx

21. xxxx

22. xxxx

23. xxxx

24. xxxx

25. xxxx

26. xxxx

27. xxxx

28. xxxx

29. xxxx

30. xxxx

31. xxxx

32. xxxx

33. xxxx

34. xxxx

35. xxxx

36. xxxx

37. xxxx

38. xxxx

39. xxxx

40. xxxx

41. xxxx

42. xxxx

43. xxxx

44. xxxx

45. xxxx

46. Meena, only for Seronj Sub Division (Revenue) of Vidisha District.."

12. The erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh vide Notification dated

21.2.1977, published in the Official Gazette dated 11.3.1977,

specified the date and in Column No.2 of Schedule the areas

which are predominantly inhabitated by aboriginal tribes, which

read as under;-

"Notification No.F-5-3-76-384-VII-M-1 dated 11th March 1977.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i) of sub-section (6) of section 165 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959),the State Government hereby, specifies -

(i) The 26th January 1977 as the date;and

(ii)The areas predominantly inhabitated by aboriginal tribes mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule below as the areas,

for the purpose of said clause,

S. Area comprised District Division No. within the limits of Tahsil

(1) (3) (4)

1. xxxx xxxx xxxx

2. xxxx xxxx xxxx

3. xxxx xxxx xxxx

4. xxxx xxxx xxxx

5. xxxx xxxx xxxx

6. xxxx xxxx xxxx

7. xxxx xxxx xxxx

8. (1) Balod 18. Durg 9. Raipur (1) Rajnandgaon 19. Rajnandgaon (1)Bhanupratappur (2) 20. Bastar Kanker (3) Narayanpur (4) Kondagaon (5) Jagdalpur (6) Dantewada (7) Konta (8) Bijapur (1) Dhamtari 21. Raipur.

(2)Bindranawagarh (Gariaband)

13. After reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh and carving

out of new State of Chhattisgarh, the State of Chhattisgarh in

supersession of Departmental Notification No.5-3-76-384

Seven-N stipulated dated 26.1.1977, published Notification in

the Official Gazette dated 29.9.2005, which reads as under:-

"In supersession of Departmental Notification Number 5-3-76-384 Seven-N stipulated dated 26.1.1977, the State Government hereby declare the following area shown as schedule as specified area for the purpose of sub-section (6) of section 165 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959)

S. Area comprised within the limits District No. of Tahsil

1. Whole District Surguja Surguja

2. Whole District Koria Koria

3. Whole District Bastar Bastar

4. Whole District Dantewada Dantewada

5. Whole District Kanker Kanker

6. Marwahi Gorella-1, Gorella-2, Bilaspur Tribal Development Blocks and Kota Revenue Inspector Circle in Bilaspur

7. Whole District Korba Korba

8. Whole District Jashpur Jashpur

9. Dharamjaigarh, Gharghoda, Raigarh Tamnar, Lailunga and Kharsia. Tribal Development Blocks in Raigarh

10. Dondi Tribal Development Blocks Durg in Durg

11. Chauki, Manpur and Mohla Tribal Rajnandgaon Development Blocks in Rajnandgaon.

        12.   Gariaband, Mainpur and Chhura          Raipur
              Tribal Development Blocks in
              Raipur
        13.   Nagri     (Sihawa)        Tribal      Dhamtari
              Development Blocks in Dhamtari.

14. Section 165 of the Code of 1959 deals with rights of transfer.

Relevant portion of Section 165 (6) of the Code of 1959 is

extracted herein below for ready reference:-

"165. Rights of transfer;- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section and the provision of Section 168 a bhumiswami may transfer x x x any interest in his land.

(2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx (5) xxxxxx (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the right of bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a notification in that behalf, for the whole or part of the area to which this Code applies shall-

(i) in such areas as are predominately inhabited by aboriginal tribes and from such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify, not be transferred nor it shall be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a

consequence of transaction of loan to a person not belonging to such tribe in the area specified in the notification.

(ii) in areas other than those specified in the notification under clause (i), not to be transferred or be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan to a person not belonging to such tribe without the permission of a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing."

15. It is provided under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code

of 1959 that from the date of issuance of notification by the

State Government, any land situated in the areas

predominantly inhabited by aboriginal tribes shall not be

transferable or it shall not be transferable to a person not

belonging to such tribe in the area specified and the land

owned by a tribal not situated within the notified area not to be

transferred or transferable to non-tribal without prior

permission of the revenue officer not below the rank of the

Collector. Provision of sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the

Code of 1959 is very clear that there is complete ban in

transfer of the land owned by tribe situated within scheduled

area to a non-tribe person. The provisions of the Code of

1959 do not differentiate between the land situated within or

outside the municipal/ municipality area. Hence, it is to be

ordinarily understood that provisions under Section 165 (6) (i)

of the Code of 1959 will apply to all the lands situated within

the scheduled areas. It also does not differentiate whether

the land is diverted or agriculture. From bare reading of sub-

section (6) of Section 165 of the Code of 1959, it is explicitly

clear that intention of the Legislature is to restrain transfer of

land owned by tribes situated in scheduled areas in favour of

non-tribals. It even does not differentiate the land situated

within municipal area or it is diverted one. Hence, in view of

specific provisions contained in the Code of 1959, in the

opinion of this Court, even if the land in question was diverted

prior to execution of sale deed and situated within municipal

area, the Additional Collector was not having any jurisdiction

to even entertain application for grant of permission to sell /

transfer land owned by tribe situated within scheduled area to

a non-tribe person. The Collector is having power to grant

permission for transfer of land of a tribe which is not situated

in scheduled area.

Case law of Ail Das (supra) relied upon by learned

Senior Counsel for appellants in support of his contention that

since land is situated within municipal area, the Additional

Collector has not committed illegality in granting permission, is

of no help to the appellants being distinguishable on facts. In

that case the subject matter of property was the house

situated over nazul plot recorded in Nazul Sheet No.17 in the

city of Bilaspur. The transfer of said land was challenged by

the legal heirs of predecessor, who was member of scheduled

tribe. The question formulated by Division Bench of the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh reads as under:-

"Whether Section 165 (6) and Section 170 of the

M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are applicable to

nazul plots situated in urban areas?

The Division Bench considering earlier decision of Division

Bench in L.A.P. No. 4/1962 (Firm Ramnarayan Begraj v.

Thakur Churamansingh) decided on 19-12-1962 held that sub-

section (5) of Section 166 and Section 170 of the MP Land

Revenue Code, 1959 cannot be made applicable to nazul land

situated in urban areas. Subject matter under consideration in

the case of Ail Das (supra) was sale of one house situated on

nazul land in urban area. In case of Firm Ramnarayan

Begraj (supra), charge was created over the disputed house

in money transaction while executing decree. The Division

Bench considered that land on which house stood was

formerly abadi plots and some khasra numbers were

occupancy plots. It was also observed that the word 'holding'

in sub-section (7) of Section 165 of the Code meant an

agricultural holding and not one which had been diverted to

non-agricultural purposes.

16. The provision of Section 165 (6) of the Code of 1959, which

was under consideration before a Division Bench of the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Ail Das (supra) and

quoted therein, reads as under:-

"(6) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), of a

Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a notification in that behalf for the whole or a part of the area to which this Code applies shall not be transferred to a person not belonging to such tribe without the permission of a Revenue

Officer not below the rank of a Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing."

Provisions of Section 165 (6) of the Code of 1959 was

amended and substituted by existing provision on 29.11.1976,

as quoted in Paragraph-12 of this order. By way of

amendment, separate provisions have been made for the land

owned by aboriginal tribes in scheduled area and other areas

of the State.

17. Facts of present case, as discussed in preceding paragraph in

order dated 9.4.2013 by the Collector, District Bastar that the

agricultural land (subject matter of writ petition) was diverted

only on 11.7.2008. The Tehsildar, Jagdalpur in his report

dated 30.9.2008 recommended for grant of permission to

transfer/ sell. Meaning thereby, prior to this date the

application was moved before the Collector for grant of

permission to sell the land stating that the land is situated in

scheduled area. The Collector granted permission vide order

dated 4.10.2008. Facts would show that permission was

obtained within three months from the date of diversion. Ratio

in any decision is to be applied considering the facts of the

case. In case at hand, the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the

Code of 1959, which were existing on the date of transfer of

land situated in scheduled area, are amended provisions

which came into force w.e.f. 29.11.1976 i.e. after passing of

judgment in case of Ail Das (supra), relied upon by learned

counsel for appellant. The dates and events, as discussed by

the Collector in its order, would show that diversion of land

was only with intent to overcome the rigor of Section 165 (6)

(i) of the Code of 1959.

18. In view of above discussion, in the opinion of this Court, the

judgment in case of Ail Das (supra), relied upon by learned

Senior Counsel for appellant, is distinguishable on facts.

19. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gwalior

Sugar (supra) is also of no help to the appellants being

related to a case distinguishable on facts from the present

one. In that case, the land was allotted to sugar mill on lease

(patta) in Samvat year 1998 (1941); when sugar factory had

faced financial crises, it sold some portion of land allotted to it

on lease to individuals and this transfer of land was

challenged by way of public interest litigation. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court considered that there is no specific clause or

condition in the lease (Patta) restraining right of appellant to

transfer any part of land allotted lying vacant and also noted

that no material had been placed to enable the Court to take a

view that under terms of lease granted under Section 101 of

the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act, 1951 and Section 39 of the

Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, any restriction

or bar had been imposed on the appellant company therein

from making such a transfer. In above facts of the case, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that bar imposed on

right of transfer does not apply to non-agriculture lands.

20. Identical issue came up for consideration in case of K.S.

Sujeeth (supra) wherein land involved therein was situated in

municipality area of Bade Bacheli (scheduled area of District

Dantewada). The Division Bench taking note of the order

passed in WPC No.3509/2011 (Vijay Pandey v. State of CG &

ors) has held that land situated in scheduled area owned by a

tribe cannot be transferred in any manner in view of bar

contained in Section 165 (6) (i) of the Code of 1959.

21. The order passed in WA No.187/2017 (supra) was put to

challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)

No.11324/2019 and the same was also dismissed vide order

dated 6.5.2019 by observing thus:-

"We are not inclined to interfere in these Special Leave Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly.

However, we accede to the request orally made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to give time to vacate the suit premises for a period of 6 months from today, subject to filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks. Ordered accordingly...."

22. In view of the above facts of the case, submissions of learned

Senior Counsel for the appellants that provisions of Section

165 (6) of the Code of 1959 are not applicable to the lands

situated within the municipal area is not sustainable.

23. Next limb of argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel

for appellants is that the Commissioner erred in exercising suo

motu revisional jurisdiction after lapse of more than two years.

This argument is bereft of merit. No material is placed on

record to show that the order granting permission to sell land

was within the knowledge of the Commissioner. It appears that

suo motu revisional power is exercised by the Commissioner

after coming to his knowledge illegality committed by the

Additional Collector. The order which was taken into suo motu

revision by the Commissioner was an order passed by the

Additional Collector who was not having jurisdiction to grant

permission for sale / transfer of land of a tribe situated in

notified scheduled area in favour of a non-tribe. This being the

position, the Additional Collector could not have entertained

the application seeking permission to transfer/ sell the land of

a tribe situated in notified area to a non-tribe.

24. Learned Senior Counsel for appellants submitted that the

power of suo motu revision to be exercised within reasonable

time and at the most in six months. Reasonable time would

depend upon facts of each case. There is no definition of

'reasonable period'. Reasonable period cannot be put in a

straight-jacket formula. Reasonable period in one case, may

not be reasonable period in another case. It has to be

considered on the facts of each case.

25. In case of Ranveer Singh (deceased by L.Rs) vs. State of

MP, reported in AIR 2011 MP 27, it was held that period of

limitation would start from the date of knowledge of any

illegality committed by authority. In case at hand, the

Additional Collector was not having jurisdiction to grant

permission to transfer land situated in scheduled area owned

by tribe to non-tribe, the order granting permission was per se

illegal. The Commissioner registered suo motu revision after

getting knowledge of illegal order. Hence, in the given facts of

case, submission of learned Senior Counsel that exercise of

suo motu revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner beyond

the reasonable period is arbitrary exercise of powers, is not

having any force.

Judgment in case of D. Narsing Rao (supra), relied

upon by learned Senior Counsel for appellant in support of his

submission with respect to limitation, is not applicable to the

facts of present case. In that case the issue for consideration

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to whether suo motu

revisional power to correct khasra entries in revenue records

can be exercised after long lapse of time. In that case,

revenue records of the year 1954-55 was sought to be

corrected in the year 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

considering that jurisdiction of revision was exercised after five

decades, has held that even when revisional power being

invoked to do so, did not prescribe any period of limitation, the

exercise of revisional power under Section 166B of the A.P.

(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Code) is not permissible. In

the case at hand, the Commissioner had invoked suo motu

revisional jurisdiction within a period of two years.

26. Next limb of argument of learned Senior Counsel for

appellants is that the Collector is not having jurisdiction to

cancel sale deed. This argument is also not acceptable.

Perusal of the order dated 29.4.2013 would reveal that the

Collector has only considered application for grant of

permission to sell/transfer of land and held that application is

not maintainable because no permission can be granted to

transfer the land of a tribe situated in scheduled area.

The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Satya Pal Anand (supra), relied upon by learned Senior

Counsel for appellant, deals with cancellation of allotment of

plot by the Society. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

default committed by member of the Society is within purview

of business of the Society and any cause of action in that

regard must be adjudicated as per procedure prescribed in

that behalf. The Society had not followed any law to take

decision in that behalf. In the case at hand, the Collector has

not cancelled the sale deed registered in favour of appellant,

as argued by learned Senior Counsel for appellant, but only

directed to revert back the land in question to its original

owner (member belonging to scheduled tribe) under the

provisions of the Code of 1959.

27. For the foregoing, these writ appeals have no substance and

the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. However,

the appellants will be at liberty to draw proceedings of

recovery of amount of sale consideration of the subject land.

                   Sd/-                                        Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Parth Prateem Sahu)
               Chief Justice                                 Judge

roshan/-