Chattisgarh High CourtState Of Chhattisgarh And Ors vs Suresh Kumar Sharma And Ors on 17 August, 20221\n\n\n\n                                                                NAFR\n\n\n         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR\n\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 362 of 2013\n1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh\n2. The Tehsildar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.\n3. The Sub- Registrar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.\n                                                       ---- Petitioners\n                              Versus\n1. Lalita Bai, W/o Shri Chaitan Ram, by caste- Gond, R/o Village-\n   Pandaripani, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tehsil and District- Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh\n2. Sangeeta, D/o Samuvel, caste- Uraon, R/o Rajiv Nagar, Raigarh,\n   P.S. City Kotwali, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh\n3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur\n                                                     ---- RespondentsWrit Petition (227) No. 120 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, P.S. Chakradhar\n   Nagar, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh, CG3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh,\n   CG---- Petitioners\n                              Versus1. M/s Shyamli Infraventure Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Dhruv\n   Agrawal, S/o Shri Sadhu Ram Agrawal, R/o Gajanandpuram,\n   Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Bhagat Ram S/o Ramsai,3. Ghurai S/o Ramsai\n   No.2 to 3 are by caste- Sawara (aboriginal Tribe), R/o Vill\n   Gopalpur, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh4. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 245 of 20141. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, P.S. Chakradhar\n   Nagar, Distt. Raigarh C.G. , Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakardhar Nagar, Distt. Raigarh\n   C.G.23. The Sub Registrar, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh\n   C.G.---- Petitioners\n                             Versus1. M/s Alok Infotech Private Limited, Through Amit Rateriya, Director,\n   Subhash Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali Distt. Raigarh C.G.2. Nirakar, S/o Ratan Lal, R/o Village Nawapali, P.S. Chakradhar\n   Nagar, Raigarh, Tah And Distt. Raigarh C.G.3. Umashankar, S/o Ratan Lal R/o Village Nawapali, P.S. Chakradhar\n   Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh C.G.4. Harilal S/o Shri Dukalu, Caste- Gond, R/o Village Nawapali, P.S.\n   Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh C.G.5. The Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur.---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 356 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District- Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.---- Petitioners\n                             Versus1. Ramesh Kumar Bareth S/o Kunjram Bareth, R/o Patelpali,\n   Raigarh, P.S. Jute Mill, Raigarh, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. Gedi, S/o Shri Khora, by caste- Kanwar, R/o Regada, P.S.\n   Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh3. The Board Of Revenue, C.G., Bilaspur---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 357 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, P.S. Chakradhar\n   Nagar, Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Dist Raigarh, CG3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Distt Raigarh,\n   CG---- Petitioner\n                             Versus1. Bodhi Ram Uraon S/o Lt Shri Kartika Ram, Aged About 55 Years,\n   R/o Vill Dogitarai, Tah And Distt Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar,\n   Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Munudai Uraon W/o Lt Shir Kartik Ram, aged about 82 years, R/o\n   Vill Dogitarai, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Dist Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh33. Sadhmati Wd/o Santosh4. Samaru S/o Santosh5. Laxmi D/o Santosh6. Gavel S/o Santosh7. Sushil Kumar S/o Joseph8. Gula S/o Joseph\n    No.3 to 8 are by caste- Uraon, R/o Vill Goverdhanpur, P.S.\n    Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh9. M/s Venkatesh Krishi Sewa Kendra, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali,\n    Tahsil & Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh10. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur,---- Respondents\n               Writ Petition (227) No. 358 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n    Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.---- Petitioners\n                               Versus1. Baldeo Ram, S/o Shri Khageshwar Ram, Aged About 50 Years,\n    R/o Vill Jurda, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh,\n    Chhattisgarh2. Kalpesh Patel S/o Shri Jasubhai Patel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o\n    Mukut Nagar, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & District : Raigarh,\n    Chhattisgarh3. The Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur.---- Respondents\n               Writ Petition (227) No. 359 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n    Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, C.G.---- Petitioner\n                               Versus1. Lalit Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 40\n    Years, R/o Vill Khairpur, Post- Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil &\n    District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Balaji Buildcon, Raigarh Balaji Builders And Developers, Raigarh,\n    Through Its Partners:-(a) Kailash Agrawal, S/o Parasram Agrawal, R/o Naya Ganj\n    Raigarh, City Kotwali, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh4(b) Sushil Mittal, S/o Shiv Narayan, R/o Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali,\n   Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh(c) Pawan Kumar Chauhan, S/o Chintaram Chauhan, R/o\n   Dhimarapur, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali,(d) Sushil Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar Agrawal, R/o Madhuban\n   Apartment, Kotara Road, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Dist Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh3. The Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur.---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 360 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.---- Petitioners\n                              Versus1. Pawan Chauhan, S/o Late Chintaram Chauhan, Caste- Gada, R/o\n   Vill Dhimarapur, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. Bahadur S/o Lalmani3. Budhiyarin D/o Lalmani\n   (Respondents No.2 and 3 are by Caste- Gada, r/o Jurda, P.S.\n   Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh4. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 361 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG.3. The Sub Registrar Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG---- Petitioner\n                              Versus1. Kailash Agrawal S/o Vasudeo Agrawal R/o Vill Baikunthpur, P.S.\n   Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Dist Raigarh,Chhattisgarh2. Kumbhakaran S/o Shri Gosai, by caste- Kanwar, R/o Regada, P.S.\n   Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur,---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 363 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh\n   Chhattisgarh52. The Tehsildar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh,3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G.---- Petitioners\n                              Versus1. Suresh Kumar Sharma S/o Goverdhan, caste- Bramhan, Aged\n   About 47 Years, R/o Vill Jurda, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil &\n   Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Vasudeo Sharam, R/o Raigarh, P.S.\n   Kotwali, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 365 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG3. The Sub Registrar Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG---- Petitioners\n                              Versus1. Salik Ram S/o Birbal Ram, by caste- Ganda, Aged About 50 Years,\n   R/o Vill Navapali, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil- Pusour,\n   Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Pawan Kumar Mittal S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Mittal, R/o Near\n   Shyam Mandir, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & District\n   Raigarh, C.G.3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 366 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dsitt Raigarh, CG3. The Sub Registrar Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG---- Petitioners\n                              Versus1. Dauram Jaltare S/o Shri Krishnachandra Jaltare, R/o Bauli Well,\n   Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Natthu Lal S/o Jethram3. Chitari Bai S/o Jethram4. Nanaki S/o Jhitaku5. Etawar Singh S/o Nanhi6. Mangalu S/o Nanhi7. Guruwaru S/o Jhitaku6No.2 to 7 are by caste- Lohar, R/o Vill Regada, PS. Chakradhar\n   Nagar, Tahsil & Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh8. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur---- Respondents\n               Writ Petition (227) No. 367 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dsitt Raigarh, CG3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG---- Petitioners\n                             Versus1. Ashok Agrawal S/o Shri Bhemsen Agrawal, R/o Laxmipur, Raigarh,\n   P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Daharu S/o Samaru3. Bhagirathi S/o Samaru4. Gangaram S/o Samaru5. Shyamlal S/o Samaru6. Birbal S/o Bhagwatiya7. Sita D/o Bhagwatiya8. Koita D/o Bhagwatiya9. Makala Wd/o Bhagwatiya10. Kevara S/o Babulal11. Vijay S/o Payarelal12. Mandara S/o Pyarelal\n   No.2 to 12 are by caste- Kharia, R/o Darramuda, P.S. Jute Mill,\n   Raigarh, Tah Pusoure, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh13. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur---- Respondents\n\n\n               Writ Petition (227) No. 368 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG.3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG---- Petitioners\n                             Versus1. Dauram Jaltare S/o Shri Krishnachandra Jaltare, R/o Bauli Well,\n   Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil & Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Puniram S/o Samaru Gond, Caste- Gond, R/o Vill Dhanuhardera,\n   P.S. Jut Mill, Raigarh, Tah- Pusoure, Dist Raigarh, Chhattisgarh73. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur---- Respondents\n\n\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 369 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG.3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG---- Petitioners\n                             Versus1. Sudarshan S/o Kunu Ram, by caste- Gond, R/o Vill Pandaripani,\n   P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh2. Sangeeta D/o Samuvel, Caste- Uraon, R/o Rajiv Nagar, Raigarh,\n   P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh3. The Board Of Revenue C.G. Bilaspur,---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 370 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Distt Raigarh, CG3. The Sub Registrar, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh, CG---- Petitioners\n                             Versus1. M/s Alok Infotech Private Limited, Through Amit Rateriya S/o\n   Sanjay Rateriya, Director, M/s Alok Infotech Private Ltd, R/o\n   Subhash Chowk, Raigarh, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt Raigarh,\n   Chhattisgarh2. Nirakar Gond S/o Ratan Lal Gond, Caste- Gond, R/o Nawapali,\n   P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Tah And Distt Raigarh, Chhattisgarh3. The Board Of Revenue C.G., Bilaspur,---- Respondents\n              Writ Petition (227) No. 573 of 20131. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, P.S. Chakradhar\n   Nagar, Dsitrict Raigarh C.G.,2. The Sub Registar, Raigarh, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, District\n   Raigarh C.G.---- Petitioners\n                             Versus1. Sadguru Developers, Through Its Partner Kailash Agrawal S/o\n   Vasudeo Agrawal, R/o Dheemarapur Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali\n   Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh C.G.82. Khuduti Bai, age not known, Wd/o Lt. Shri Dharam Das, Caste-\n      Panika R/o Village Urdana P.S. City Kotwali Tahsil And Distt.\n      Raigarh, Chhattisgarh3. The Board Of Revenue, C.G. Bilaspur---- Respondents\n\n    Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate for petitioners.\n    Mr. Hariom Rai, Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Mr. Pawan Kumar,\n     Mr. Vijay Deshmukh and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocates for\n     respective respondents. Ms. Priyambada Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate for State.Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey\n                               Order on Board\n17-08-2022\n\n\nHeard.1. These matters were taken up yesterday but there was no\n\n      representation on behalf of the private respondents, therefore, the\n\n      matters were passed over for today. Today, these matters have\n\n      been taken for hearing in first half but except learned counsel for\n\n      petitioner i.e. State, no one has appeared on behalf of the private\n\n      respondents, therefore, matters were passed over again. When\n\n      matters were called again Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for\n\n      respondent in W.P.(227) No.120/2013 and W.P.(227) No.360/2013,\n\n      Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap in W.P.(227) No.365/2013, Mr. Pawan\n\n      Kumar, appearing on behalf of Mr. Vijay Deshmukh in W.P.(227)\n\n      No.367/2013     and      Mr.   Manoj   Kumar   Sinha   in   W.P.(227)\n\n      No.245/2014 are present and in rest of matters there is no\n\n      representation at all.2. The issue involved in these cases is not res integra, therefore,9matter is heard finally in presence of learned counsel for the\n\n  petitioner i.e. State and the learned counsel for the respondents in\n\n  some of the cases.3. In W.P.(227) No.362 of 2013, the order passed by Board of\n\n  Revenue, Bilaspur dated 08.10.2010 is under challenge, likewise\n\n  in other petitions, similar orders passed by the Board of Revenue\n\n  have been challenged. By the impugned order, the Board of\n\n  Revenue has permitted private respondents to sell their land in\n\n  question and granted permission under Sections 165(6) and\n\n  165(7) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred\n\n  to as "the Code of 1959"). The objections were filed after issuance\n\n  of circular by the Collector, Raigarh dated 25/30-9-2004, wherein it\n\n  was observed that permission to alienate the property obtained\n\n  from the Government under Section 158(3) of the Code, 1959\n\n  shall not be granted by the order of authority not below than the\n\n  rank of Collector and revenue authorities were directed to record\n\n  specifically "untransferrable land obtained from Government" in the\n\n  Revenue Records. The copy of circular issued by the Collector,\n\n  Raigarh dated 25/30-9-2004 is given below:-" dk;kZ y ; dysD Vj] jk;x<+] ftyk & jk;x<+ ( Nrrhlx<+)\n\n  dzzekad @l0v0jk0@04@5688                       jk;x<+] fnukad 25@30 9&2004\n\n  izfr]\n          1vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh (jk0) loZ2.rglhynkj@vfr0rg0@uk;c rglhynkj (loZ)3.jktLo fujh{kd (loZ)\n\n          ftyk& jk;x<+ (N0x0)\n\n\n  fo"k;%& 'kklu ls izkIr Hkwfe ds laca/k esaA10N0x0 Hkw&jktLo lafgrk 1959 dh /kkjk 185 dh mi/kkjk ([k) ds rgr\n   dksbZ Hkh ,slk O;fDr tks dksbZ Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj ls /kkj.k djrk gS ;k dksbZ\n   Hkh ,slk O;fDr tks /kkjk 158 dh mi/kkjk (3) ds v/khu HkwfeLokeh vf/kdkj esa\n   Hkwfe /kkj.k djrk gS vFkok ftls dksbZ Hkwfe ljdkjh iV~Vsnkj ds #i es n[ky\n   j[kus dk vf/kdkj jkT; ljdkj ;k dysDVj }kjk fn;k tkrk gS vkSj tks\n   rRi'pkr ,slh Hkwfe dk HkwfeLokeh cu tkrk gS] ,slh Hkwfe dk varj.k dysDVj\n   dh inJs.kh ls vfHkUu in Js.kh ds fdlh jktLo vf/kdkjh dh vuqKk tks\n   ys[kc} fd, tkus okys dkj.kksa ls nh tkosxh] ds fcuk ugh djsxkA jk;x<+\n   vuqfoHkkx esa bl izdkj Hkwfe dk fodz; fcuk vuqefr ds gksus dh f'kdk;r izkIr\n   gqbZ gS] tks mDr lafgrk ds ,slh izko/kkuks ds mYya?ku gSA vr vki [kljs es\n   ,slh Hkwfe ij "'kklu ls izkIr Hkwfe vgLrkarj.kh;" ntZ djsaA vkids }kjk\n   dk;Zokgh u djus ls ;fn bl izdkj ds Hkwfe dk voS/k #i ls fodz; gksuk ik;k\n   tkrk gS rks lacaf/krksa ds fo#) dk;Zokgh dh tkosxh rFkk 'kklu dks gqbZ {kfr dh\n   olwyh dh tkosxh\n                                                                           lgh@&\n                                                                           dysDVj\n                                                                           jk;x<+\n\n\n   i`0dz0       @l0v0jk0@04                                jk;x<+] fnukad 25&9&2004\n\n\n   izfrfyfi%&\n            vij dysDVj] jk;x<+ dks vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq lwpukFkZ A\n                                                                           lgh@&\n                                                                           dysDVj\n                                                                           jk;x<+4. Against this circular, many cases were filed before the Board of\n\n   Revenue and Board of Revenue granted permission to sell the\n\n   property and consequently, sale-deeds were also executed.5. In this batch of petitions, the State has assailed the orders passed\n\n   by the Board of Revenue on different dates while exercising its\n\n   power conferred under Section 08 of the Code, 1959 and granted\n\n   permission to grant lease deed of the Government land and set\n\n   aside the circular issued by the Collector, Raigarh, dated 25/30-9-\n\n   2004, wherein it was directed that a Government land shall not be\n\n   transferred by the order of authority not below than the rank of11Collector. Further, the Revenue authorities were directed to record\n\n   specifically "untransferrable land obtained from Government" in the\n\n   revenue records. Against the order issued by the Collector,\n\n   Raigarh, dated 25/30-9-2004, many applications were filed before\n\n   the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, while exercising\n\n   power under Section 08 of the Code, 1959 has allowed the\n\n   applications moved by the private respondents and permitted them\n\n   to alienate the property. The State has come before this Court\n\n   against the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on different\n\n   dates in different Miscellaneous Case Numbers.6. An identical issue came up before this Court in W.P.(227) No.115\n\n   of 2013 inState of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Pawan\n\n   Chauhan and Othersdecided on 23.08.2018, wherein the power\n\n   and jurisdiction of Board of Revenue under Section 08 of Code of\n\n   1959 to consider and grant application for permission to sell the\n\n   land under Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code of 1959, in light of\n\n   Section 08 of the Code of 1959 only confers administrative\n\n   jurisdiction to Board of Revenue, was under consideration. It was\n\n   also considered that whether the power of the Board of Revenue\n\n   under Section 08 of the Code of 1959 is akin to the power of High\n\n   Court underArticle 227of Constitution of India.7. It is also observed in the case ofState of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pawan\n\n   Chauhan (Supra) that "the Board of Revenue has no business to\n\n   lift the ban imposed by the Collector under the provisions of law, it\n\n   could have been relaxed by the competent authority, if applied for\n\n   by the aggrieved person, and in the manner provided under the12law. The Board of Revenue has exercised the jurisdiction not\n\n  vested in it and exceeded its authority by not only granting\n\n  permission which has been conferred to the Collector under\n\n  Sections 165(6)(ii) and 165(7) of the Code, 1959 but also further\n\n  exceeded the jurisdiction by lifting/relaxing the ban imposed and\n\n  by directing the competent authority to furnish 22 point information\n\n  and further directing the Deputy Registrar to register the sale\n\n  deed."8. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment passed in case ofState\n\n  of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Pawan Chauhan & Others(Supra)\n\n  are reproduced here:-10. In the erstwhile Madhya Bharat State, the Board of\n     Revenue was constituted under the M.B. Board of Revenue\n     Ordinance, 1948 dated the 15th January, 1948. Similarly, in\n     the former Central Provinces, the Board of Revenue was\n     constituted under the C.P. and Berar Board of Revenue\n     Ordinance, 1949. In the former Madhya Pradesh, the\n     provisions of the Ordinance were enacted as the C.P. and\n     Berar Board of Revenue Act, 1949, which was later on\n     repealed by the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1954. On the eve\n     of the formation of the new Madhya Pradesh State, three\n     Boards of Revenue were functioning for the Mahakoshal,\n     Madhya Bharat and Vindhya Pradesh regions and these\n     three Boards were integrated by notification dated the 1st\n     November, 1956. Exercising the powers under Section 8 of\n     the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, the\n     Government of the new Madhya Pradesh State constituted\n     the Board of Revenue for the new State. This Board was\n     exercising   different   powers   and   discharging   different\n     functions in the different regions according to the regional13laws. By virtue of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the\nM.P. Land Revenue Code, 1954, the Board of Revenue\nfunctioning immediately before the 2nd October, 1959, was\ndeemed to be the Board of Revenue constituted under this\nCode. Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue\nCode, 1959 states as under: -"3. Constitution of Board of Revenue--(1) There\n  shall be a Board of Revenue for Madhya Pradesh\n  consisting of a President and two or more other\n  members as the State Government may, from time to\n  time, think fit to appoint.(2) The Board of Revenue as constituted and\n  functioning for the several regions of this State\n  immediately before the coming into force of this Code,\n  hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the existing\n  Board, shall with effect from the date of coming into\n  force of this Code, be deemed to be the Board of\n  Revenue for Madhya Pradesh constituted under this\n  section.(3) The President and members of the existing Board\n  shall be the first President and members respectively of\n  the Board of Revenue for Madhya Pradesh.11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to consider the\nreport   of   the   Select      Committee   in   which   following\nobservations appear about the Board of Revenue: -"The Committee noted that the Bill as drafted entrusted\n  the Board of Revenue with judicial and administrative\n  powers. It was explained to the Committee that the\n  functions entrusted to the Board were primarily judicial\n  but an enabling provision was made with a view to\n  obviate difficulty in cases it was later on considered\n  necessary to entrust superintendence of administrative\n  side also to Board. The Committee sees no objection to14this. The Committee considered that in case the Board\n  decides to sit at different places in the State on circuit\n  there shall be a provision for enabling it to do so,\n  considering the expanse of the State. A new clause 3-A\n  (section 4 of the Code) has been inserted to serve this\n  object."12. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to notice\nSection 8 of the Code constituted under Section 3(2), which\nhas been conferred the power of superintendence. Section 8\nof the Code states as under: -"8. Powers of superintendence of Board. --The\n  Board shall, in respect of all matters subject to its\n  appellate      or     revisional      jurisdiction,   have\n  superintendence over all authorities in so far as such\n  authorities deal with such matters and may call for\n  returns."13. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show\nthat the Board of Revenue has been conferred the power of\nsuperintendence in respect of all matters subject to its\nappellate or revisional jurisdiction and the said Board would\nexercise the power of superintendence over all authorities in\nso far as such authorities deal with such matters and also\nempowered to call for returns. It is not an unqualified\nprovision and confers administrative jurisdiction to the Board\nsubject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.17.In the matter ofPest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Pest\nControl (India) Pvt. Ltd. Employees' all India Union and\nothers , the Bombay High Court defining the scope of\nsupervisory jurisdiction held as under: -"9. The main challenge to the above order is on the\n   ground that the Industrial Court acted patently beyond\n   its limited supervisory jurisdiction in taking upon itself\n   the task of reappreciating the entire evidence and15passing a fresh order as if it was the original authority\n   or an authority sitting in appeal over the order of the\n   Labour Court. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court\n   under section 44 of the Act, according to the petitioner,\n   is very limited. It is only supervisory in nature. In the\n   instant case, the Industrial Court went far beyond its\n   powers and in that view of the matter itself the\n   impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed."18.In the matter ofHameed Kunju v. Nazim, the Supreme\nCourt has held that in exercise of jurisdiction underArticle\n227of the Constitution of India, the Court should not decide\nthe writ petition like original court and observed as under: -"26. In any case, in our considered view, the executing\n   court having seized of the applications filed by the\n   respondent, there was no justification on the part of\n   the High Court to have entertained the writ petition and\n   decided them like an original court. All that the High\n   Court, in such circumstances, could do was to request\n   the executing court to dispose of the pending\n   applications (IAs) filed by the respondent on their\n   respective merits leaving the parties to challenge the\n   orders once passed on such applications by filing\n   appeal, before the appellate authorities. It was,\n   however, not done.40. In so doing, the High Court failed to see that the\n   High Court curtailed the judicial powers of the trial\n   Court    in   passing       appropriate   order   on   such\n   applications. The High Court had no jurisdiction to\n   issue directions to the trial court to pass a particular\n   order by either allowing the application or rejecting it.\n   All that the High Court could do in such case was to\n   remand the case and leave the trial court to pass\n   appropriate orders on the application(s) in exercise of\n   its judicial discretion."1625. The Code clearly confers the jurisdiction to the Collector\nunder Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code to grant permission,\ntherefore, the jurisdiction has to be exercised by the\nCollector only, neither the authority higher than Collector nor\nany other authority including the Board of Revenue can\nexercise that power. The Collector is one of the revenue\nofficers mentioned in Section 11 of the Code. Whereas the\nBoard of Revenue is not a Revenue Officer, but it is a\nRevenue Court, neither the Board of Revenue nor any\nmember of the Board of Revenue is Revenue Officer. It is\nthus, clear that the Board of Revenue is a Revenue Court as\nprovided under Section 31 of the Code. However, the\nRevenue Officers mentioned in Section 11 of the Code are\nboth Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts. The Board\nbeing only a Revenue Court can administratively supervise\nthe working of Revenue Officer under the provisions of the\nCode subject to its appellate and revisional jurisdiction, but\nunder Section 8 of the Code no original jurisdiction of judicial\nrevision has been conferred to the Board of Revenue, it is\nonly administrative in nature. As such, the order passed by\nthe Board of Revenue directly entertaining the application\nand granting that application in exercise of power which has\nnot been statutorily conferred to him is absolutely without\njurisdiction, as there is no semblance of jurisdiction\nconferred to the Board of Revenue under Section 8 of the\nCode to grant application under Sections 165(6)(ii) and\n165(7) of the Code.26. In the matter of Joint Action Committee of Air Line\nPilots' Association of India (ALPAI) and others v.\nDirector General of Civil Aviation and others, the\nSupreme Court while relying upon the earlier judgments held\nthat an authority vested with the power to act under the\nstatute alone should exercise its discretion following the\nprocedure prescribed therein and observed as under:-17"27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court inCommr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji,Bahadursinh\n   Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. KamaliaandPancham Chand v. State of H.P.observing that an\n   authority vested with the power to act under the statute\n   alone should exercise its discretion following the\n   procedure prescribed therein and interference on the\n   part of any authority upon whom the statute does not\n   confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It\n   violates the constitutional scheme.28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges\n   that the authority who has been vested with the power\n   to exercise its discretion alone can pass the order.\n   Even a senior official cannot provide for any guideline\n   or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a\n   particular manner."27. There is yet another reason for not upholding the order,\nas the Board of Revenue has relaxed the ban imposed by\nthe Collector under its jurisdiction, however, the Board of\nRevenue has no business to lift the ban imposed by the\nCollector under the provisions of law, it could have been\nrelaxed by the competent authority, if applied for by the\naggrieved person, and in the manner provided under the\nlaw. The Board of Revenue has exercised the jurisdiction not\nvested in it and exceeded its authority by not only granting\npermission which has been conferred to the Collector under\nSections 165(6)(ii) and 165(7) of the Code, but also further\nexceeded the jurisdiction by lifting/relaxing the ban imposed\nand directing the competent authority to furnish 22 point\ninformation and further directing the Deputy Registrar to\nregister the sale deed. In the considered opinion of this\nCourt, the order passed by the Board of Revenue granting\npermission under Section 165(6)(ii) of the Code and relaxing\nthe ban deserves to be quashed being wholly without18jurisdiction and authority of law.9. From the ratiolaid down byCoordinate Bench of this Court in case\n\n            ofState of Chhattisgarh Vs. Pawan Chauhan (Supra), it is crystal\n\n            clear that the Board of Revenue has no power to relax or lift the\n\n            ban imposed by the competent authority i.e. 'Collector'. The Board\n\n            of Revenue has committed illegality by exceeding its jurisdiction,\n\n            thereby granting permission to sale/alienate the Government land,\n\n            which was banned by the Collector, Raigarh under its jurisdiction.10. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the orders\n\n            passed by the Board of Revenue in respective Writ Petitions are\n\n            hereby set aside and registration of sale deeds, if any, are also\n\n            quashed.11. With   these observation(s)/direction(s), these petitions stand\n\n            disposed of.Sd/-(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)\n                                                     Judge\nMonika