^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.372 of 2010 APPELLANT Petitioner Smt. Sumitra Devi, wife of Shri Rajendra Prasad Patel, aged about 55 years, resident of village Savitripur, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Surguja (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Cotlector, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Sonsai, son of Shri Parmeshwar Gond, resident of Savitrinagar, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Surguja (CG) Present: Shri G.S. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate for the appellant. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDOMENT (29-10-2010) The following judgment ofthe Court was delivered by Dhirendra Mishra, J. 1. This writ appeal is directedagainst the order dated 30 September, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.3284 of 2003 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant herein against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 23 September, 2003 whereby the revision preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Shri G.S. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the proceeding initiated by Sub Divisional Officer under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code') was without jurisdiction and nullity, as it was initiated with respect to a transaction that took place on 21.12.1983. Proceeding under Section 165 (6) of the Code, without following procedure laid down under Section 170 was also without ^, ^ jurisdiction. It was argued that the appellant has constructed a permanent house over the disputed land and in the circumstances, the courts below were not justified in directing restoration of possession under Section 170-B. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record of the writ petition as also the impugned order. 4. Indisputably, respondent No.2 is a tribal whereas the appellant does not belong to ST category. Learned Single Judge, considering that the appellant's claim over the subject land was based on unregistered instrument dated 25-1-1983 allegedly executed by a person betonging to ST whereby the same has been sold to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.1400/- and the transaction has been effected without due permission under Section 165 (6) of the Code, held that in the absence of any legal right existing in favour of the petitioner to remain in possession of the land belonging to a member of an aboriginal tribe, the Collector Surguja was justified in holding that the petitioner's possession over the land is in violation of Section 165 (6). 5. Considering the above undisputed facts, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge was justified in declining to interfere with the impugned orders of the revenue Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. We find no substance in this writ appeal, the same deserves tobe and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve