1

CGHC010089462022 2026:CGHC:32781

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1365 of 2022

Order Reserved on: 15.6.2026

Order Delivered on: 30.7.2026

1 - Hukum Sai Rajwar S/o Mohan Rajwar Aged About 80 Years R/o

Village Kunjnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Sub Divisional Officer Surajpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Collector Sarguja, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh.

4 - Samudri W/o Bahadur Bhima R/o Village Karampur, Tahsil Surajpur,

District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

5 - Lakhan S/o Bahadur Bhima R/o Village Karampur, Tahsil Surajpur,

District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

6 - Madan S/o Bahadur Bhima R/o Village Karampur, Tahsil Surajpur,

District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

7 - Vijay S/o Bahadur Bhima R/o Village Karampur, Tahsil Surajpur,

District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

2

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)/State :Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel

Lawyer.

For Respondents No. 4 to 7:Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on

behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar

Patel, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Order

1.By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

reliefs:-

“10.1. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to

issue appropriate writ quashing the order impugned (ann.

P/6) dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner.”

2.Brief facts of the case, is that, one Bahadur had filed an

application under Section 170-B of the Madhya

Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Sub-

Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur, inter alia, stating that he

belongs to the Bhima caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe, and that

the lands bearing various Khasra numbers, as detailed in

Schedule-A to the application, situated at Village Karampur,

Revenue Circle Pilkha, District Surajpur, originally belonged to his

father, namely, Sundar Sai, and were settled and recorded in his

name in the revenue records.

3

3.It was further stated in the application that, after the death of

Sundar Sai, the lands in question were mutated in the names of

his sons, namely, Mahaveer and Rooney, in the revenue records.

Mahaveer died issueless and, after the death of Mahaveer and

Rooney, there was no other successor to the lands in question

except the applicant. It was alleged that Mahaveer had mortgaged

the lands in question in favour of Mohan, father of Hukum Sai;

however, a registered sale deed was fraudulently got executed in

favour of Hukum Sai, without the knowledge of the applicant or

the other persons concerned. The lands continued to remain in

the possession of Mohan, father of Hukum Sai, and when

possession thereof was sought to be recovered, the respondents

refused to hand over the same. It was, therefore, alleged that the

sale deed had been obtained fraudulently and the transaction had

never been disclosed to the applicant or the other interested

persons. According to the applicant, the aforesaid transaction was

in contravention of Section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land

Revenue Code, 1959, and, therefore, the lands were liable to be

reverted to the original tribal landholder or his legal heirs. The

concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) took cognizance of

the application, issued notices to Hukum Sai and the other

concerned persons and, after conducting a detailed enquiry,

passed an order dated 13.06.2002, holding that the registered

sale deed had been fraudulently and illegally executed and,

accordingly, declared the said transaction to be null and void.

4

4.Since the lands in question had already been acquired by South

Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), an order for physical reversion

of the lands could not be passed. Consequently, Hukum Sai, son

of Mohan, was directed to return the amount of compensation

received towards acquisition of the lands in question to the legal

heirs of Bahadur, namely, Samudri and others. The aforesaid

order was challenged by way of an appeal under Section 44 of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Collector.

Upon due consideration of the material available on record and

the nature of the transaction, the Collector found that the

transaction in question had not been effected in accordance with

law.

5.The Collector further held that the transaction was in

contravention of Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, 1959, and that the concerned Sub-Divisional

Officer (Revenue) had rightly declared the sale deed to be null

and void. It was further observed that, since the lands in question

had already been acquired by SECL, their physical reversion was

no longer possible and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue) had rightly directed the return of the compensation

amount to the legal heirs of Bahadur, namely, Samudri, Lakhan,

Madan and Vijay. Accordingly, the order passed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer (Revenue) was affirmed by the Collector. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision

before the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur. The

5

Commissioner, upon reconsideration of the entire matter and the

material available on record, arrived at the conclusion that the

registered sale deed had been obtained by playing fraud upon the

original tribal landholder and, therefore, had rightly been declared

null and void. The Commissioner further observed that, ordinarily,

the consequence of such a finding would be reversion of the lands

to the original landholder or his legal heirs; however, since the

lands had already been acquired by SECL, actual reversion

thereof was not possible. In such circumstances, the direction for

return of the compensation amount received in respect of the

acquired lands to the legal heirs of the original landholder was

held to be just and in accordance with law. Consequently, the

revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the

impugned order dated 14.12.2021.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 170-B of

the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959,

does not contain any provision empowering the revenue

authorities to direct the return or repayment of compensation

received upon acquisition of the land. He submits that Section

170-B of the Code deals with fraudulent transactions relating to

the lands of members of Scheduled Tribes and, where, upon

enquiry, it is found that the transaction was fraudulent or in

contravention of Section 165(6) of the Code, the competent

authority is empowered to pass an order for reversion of the land

to the original tribal landholder or his legal heirs. He further

6

submits that, in the present case, the lands in question had

already been acquired by SECL and the compensation amount

was paid to the petitioner as his name was duly recorded in the

revenue records at the relevant point of time. According to learned

counsel, there is no provision under the Madhya

Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, authorising the

revenue authorities to direct the petitioner to return the

compensation received by him in lieu of acquisition of the lands. It

is further submitted that SECL, being the acquiring body and a

necessary party to the dispute, has not been impleaded as a party

to the proceedings and, therefore, the proceedings also suffer

from non-joinder of a necessary party. Learned counsel, therefore,

submits that the orders passed by all the three revenue authorities

are beyond the scope and ambit of Section 170-B of the Code and

are contrary to law and, as such, the impugned orders deserve to

be quashed.

7.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as

learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 to 7 oppose the

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submit that all

the three revenue authorities have concurrently recorded a finding

that the transaction in question was fraudulent and was effected in

contravention of Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, 1959. It is submitted that, once the transaction

itself has been declared null and void, the petitioner cannot be

permitted to retain the compensation amount received on the

7

strength of such an illegal and fraudulent transaction. Learned

counsel further submit that, since the lands in question had

already been acquired by SECL, physical reversion of the lands to

the original tribal landholder or his legal heirs had become

impossible and, therefore, the revenue authorities rightly directed

the petitioner to return the compensation amount to the private

respondents in lieu of reversion of the lands. It is, therefore,

submitted that the orders passed by the three revenue authorities

are based upon concurrent findings of fact, are just and proper

and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting

interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

8.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

9.This Court is of the view that the sole question which arises for

consideration and determination in the present case is whether, in

exercise of the powers conferred under Section 170-B of the

Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the

competent revenue authority is empowered to pass an order

directing the return of the compensation amount received in lieu of

the land, where the transaction and registration of such land in

favour of the petitioner has subsequently been found to be

fraudulent and contrary to the provisions of the Code. In other

words, the issue which requires determination is whether a

direction for restitution or return of the compensation amount

received on account of acquisition of such land can be issued in

8

proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code, particularly when

physical reversion of the land has become impossible owing to its

subsequent acquisition. In order to examine and adjudicate upon

the aforesaid question, it would be apposite to refer to the

provisions contained in Section 170-B of the Madhya

Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which read as

under:-

“170-B. Reversion of land of members of

aboriginal tribe which was transferred by fraud.-(1)

Every person who on the date of commencement of

the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code

(Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the

Amendment Act of 1980) is in possession of

agricultural land which belonged to a member of a

tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe

under sub-section (6) of section 165 between the

period commencing on the 2nd October, 1959 and

ending on the date of the commencement of

Amendment Act, 1980 shall, within 2[two years) of

such commencement, notify to the Sub-Divisional

Officer in such form and in such manner as may be

prescribed, all the information as to how he has come

in possession of such land.

(2) If any person fails to notify the information as

required by sub-section (1) within the period specified

9

therein it shall be presumed that such person has

been in possession of the agricul-tural land without

any lawful authority and the agricultural land shall, on

the expiration of the period aforesaid revert to the

person to whom it originally belonged and if that

person be dead, to his legal heirs.

[(2-A) If a Gram Sabha in the Scheduled area referred

to in clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution finds

that any person, other than a member of an aboriginal

tribe, is in possession of any land of a Bhumiswami

belonging to an aboriginal tribe, without any lawful

authority, it shall restore the possession of such land

to that person to whom it originally belonged and if

that person is dead to his legal heirs.

Provided that if the Gram Sabha fails to restore the

posses-sion of such land, it shall refer the matter to

the Sub-Divisional Officer, who shall restore the

possession of such land within three months from the

date of receipt of the reference.]

(3) On receipt of the information under sub-section (1),

the Sub- Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as

may be deemed necessary about all such transactions

of transfer and if he finds that the member of

aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate

10

right he shall declare the transaction null and void and

pass an order revesting the agricultural land in the

transferer and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs.]

[(3) On receipt of the information under sub-section (1)

the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make such enquiry as

may be neces-sary about all such transactions of

transfer and if he finds that the member of aboriginal

tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate right he

shall declare the transaction null and void and-

(a) Where no building or structure has been erected

on the agricultural land prior to such finding pass an

order revesting the agricultural land in the transferer

and if he be dead, in his legal heirs,

(b) Where any building or structure has been erected

on the agricultural land prior to such finding, he shall

fix the price of such land in accordance with the

principles laid down for fixation of price of land in the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (No. 1 of 1894) and order

the person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay to the

trans-ferer the difference, if any, between the price so

fixed and the price actually paid to the transferer:

Provided that where the building or structure has been

erected after the 1st day of January, 1984 the

provisions of clause

11

(b) above shall not apply:

Provided further that fixation of price under clause (b)

shall be with reference to the price on the date of

registration of the case before the Sub-Divisional

Officer.]”

10.From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that

Section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, 1959, is intended to deal with transactions

concerning the lands of members of Scheduled Tribes which are

found, upon enquiry, to be fraudulent, illegal or otherwise contrary

to the provisions of the Code. Where such a transaction is found

to be fraudulent, the statutory consequence ordinarily

contemplated under the said provision is reversion of the land to

the original tribal landholder or his legal heirs. The question which,

however, arises in the present case is as to what appropriate relief

can be granted where the land in question has already been

acquired and, consequently, its physical reversion to the original

landholder or his legal heirs has become impossible. In the

present case, it is not in dispute that, on the basis of the

transaction subsequently found to be fraudulent, the petitioner got

his name mutated in the revenue records. It is also not in dispute

that the land in question had already been acquired by SECL prior

to the filing of the application under Section 170-B of the Code.

The material available on record further indicates that the

transaction in question was not within the knowledge of the

12

original landholder, namely, Sundar Sai, or his legal heirs. From

the documents available on record, it appears that the original

tribal landholders had never intended to alienate the land by way

of an absolute sale and that the transaction was, in substance,

intended to be a mortgage. However, a registered sale deed was

obtained in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which his name

was subsequently mutated in the revenue records. The concurrent

findings recorded by the revenue authorities demonstrate that the

tribal landholders were defrauded and that the sale deed in favour

of the petitioner had been obtained by way of a fraudulent

transaction.

11.The object and purpose underlying Section 170-B of the Code is

to protect members of Scheduled Tribes from illegal, fraudulent

and unauthorised transactions concerning their lands and to

prevent non-tribals or other persons from retaining possession or

deriving benefit from such transactions. For achieving the

aforesaid object, the Sub-Divisional Officer, being the prescribed

authority, has been conferred with the power and jurisdiction to

conduct an enquiry into the nature and validity of such

transactions and to grant appropriate relief in accordance with the

statutory scheme. Though the provision primarily contemplates

reversion of the land to the original tribal landholder or his legal

heirs, in a case where physical reversion of the land has become

impossible on account of its subsequent acquisition, the beneficial

object of Section 170-B cannot be rendered nugatory merely for

13

the reason that the land is no longer available for restoration. In

such circumstances, the tribal landholder or his legal heirs cannot

be left remediless, particularly when the compensation for

acquisition of the land has been received by a person whose title

was founded upon a transaction subsequently declared to be

fraudulent and null and void. Thus, where the petitioner has

received the compensation amount solely on the strength of a

sale deed which has been declared null and void, the benefit

derived from such transaction cannot be permitted to be retained

by him to the prejudice of the original tribal landholders or their

legal heirs.

12.It is also pertinent to note that Section 170-B of the Code itself

contemplates a situation where reversion of the land may not be

practicable on account of the construction of a building or

structure over the agricultural land and provides for payment of

the price of such land determined in accordance with the

principles laid down for fixation of the price of land under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. The provision further contemplates

adjustment of any amount already paid and payment of the

differential amount, if any. The aforesaid statutory scheme makes

it clear that the legislative intent is not confined merely to the

physical reversion of the land but is also aimed at securing the

monetary value of the land to the tribal landholder in cases where

actual restoration of possession is not possible. Therefore, in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where the

14

land has already been acquired by SECL and physical reversion

thereof is no longer possible, an appropriate monetary relief can

be granted to the original tribal landholders or their legal heirs.

However, such monetary liability is required to be determined in

conformity with the mechanism contemplated under Section 170-

B of the Code and the principles governing determination of the

price of the land.

13.In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and legal position,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders passed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur, and affirmed by

the Collector, Sarguja, as well as the Commissioner, Sarguja

Division, Ambikapur, require modification only to the extent of

determination of the monetary amount payable in respect of the

land in question. Accordingly, the impugned orders are modified to

the extent that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),

Surajpur, shall determine the price of the land in question in

accordance with the principles laid down for fixation of the price of

land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as contemplated under

Section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land

Revenue Code, 1959. Upon such determination, the petitioner

shall be liable to pay the amount so determined to the entitled

legal heirs of the original tribal landholder. While determining the

amount payable, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Surajpur,

shall also take into consideration and appropriately adjust the

compensation amount already received by the petitioner in

15

respect of the acquisition of the land in question. The aforesaid

exercise shall be carried out by the concerned authority strictly in

accordance with law and after affording a reasonable opportunity

of hearing to all the parties concerned.

14.Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the orders passed

by the revenue authorities, the present writ petition stands

disposed of. The concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),

Surajpur, is directed to undertake and complete the exercise of

determination of the price of the land in question, in terms of the

observations and directions made hereinabove, within a period of

90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after

affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties

concerned. Upon determination of the amount payable, the

petitioner shall deposit/pay the amount so determined in favour of

the entitled legal heirs of the original tribal landholder within a

further period of 60 days from the date of such determination. It is

made clear that, except to the extent of the modification made

hereinabove with regard to the determination of the amount

payable, the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue

authorities regarding the fraudulent nature of the transaction and

the invalidity of the sale deed shall remain undisturbed.

15.With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Raghu Jat