Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Tribal Land Sale Rejection, Says 5-Acre Retention Rule Belongs to Execution Proceedings, Not Voluntary Transfer

The Bilaspur bench found authorities misread Section 165(7) and wrongly imposed a 5-acre minimum on a Scheduled Tribe member's voluntary sale application under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has quashed orders by the Collector, District Mungeli, and the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue that rejected a Scheduled Tribe member's application to sell a small parcel of agricultural land. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, sitting singly, held that both authorities had imported a condition that does not exist in Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959—namely, that a tribal bhumiswami must retain at least 5 acres of irrigated land before a voluntary sale can be permitted. The court found that the 5-acre protection belongs exclusively to Section 165(7), which governs compulsory attachment and sale in execution of a decree, and has no application to a voluntary transfer made with prior official permission.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, Vijay, son of Panchram, is a resident of Village Raitrakhurd, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli. He holds land in Khasra Nos. 44/3, 102, 115/1, 101, 123/1 and 130 at that village. Carrying financial debt and facing the cost of his children's marriage, he decided to sell a small portion of Khasra No. 130—admeasuring 0.03½ acre out of a total of 0.162 hectare—to his neighbour Shriram Sahu, respondent No. 5, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/-. An agreement to sell was executed on 20 July 2021, and Vijay received an advance of Rs. 25,000/- on the same date.

Because Vijay belongs to the Scheduled Tribes community, Section 165(6) of the Code, 1959 required him to obtain prior permission from the Collector before completing the sale. He applied to the Collector, Mungeli, on 22 September 2021. The Collector referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lormi (respondent No. 3), who in turn directed the Tahsildar, Lormi (respondent No. 4), to conduct an inquiry.

The Tahsildar recorded statements from Vijay, co-owners, and Shriram Sahu, obtained the guideline and market values of the land from the Registry Office, and examined how much land would remain with the petitioner after the proposed sale. The inquiry found that approximately 1.246 hectares (3.076 acres) would continue in Vijay's ownership and possession—enough, the Tahsildar concluded, for his livelihood. The Tahsildar sent the file upward with a clear recommendation to grant permission.

The SDO, however, disagreed. In his order of 11 February 2022, he refused to endorse the recommendation on the ground that after the sale Vijay would be left with only 1.246 hectares, whereas “at least 5 acres must be left with the petitioner.” Acting on that recommendation, the Collector rejected the application on 10 March 2022, stating that only 3.076 acres would remain, which fell short of the 5-acre irrigated or 10-acre unirrigated threshold “according to the Code, 1959.”

Vijay challenged that order before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. The Board dismissed his revision on 24 March 2023, affirming that he was not left with at least 5 acres as required under Section 165(6-a) of the Code. He then filed WPC No. 2351 of 2023 before the High Court.

The Statutory Provisions in Issue

Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 restricts transfer of land by a tribal bhumiswami. Clause (i) applies a blanket prohibition in notified areas predominantly inhabited by aboriginal tribes. Clause (ii) applies outside such notified areas: the land may not be transferred to a non-tribal without the prior written permission of a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector. The court noted that Mungeli district does not fall within a Scheduled Area—only Katghora and Bilaspur have been so designated—meaning clause (ii) and not clause (i) governed Vijay's application.

Section 165(6-a) governs transfers by a non-tribal bhumiswami of non-agricultural land to a non-tribal, also requiring Collector's permission.

Section 165(7)(a) is the provision that actually uses the 5-acre and 10-acre figures. It provides that where the aggregate holdings of a bhumiswami exceed 5 acres of irrigated land or 10 acres of unirrigated land, only the area in excess of those thresholds shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or order. In other words, the provision protects a minimum holding from being seized in court-driven execution proceedings.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that the Collector and the Board of Revenue had “travelled beyond the scope of Section 165(6) and 165(6-a) by importing a condition which is not contemplated under the statute.” A plain reading of Section 165(6) prescribes no mandatory minimum retention of land as a precondition to granting permission for voluntary transfer. The 5-acre floor appears only in Section 165(7), whose express field of operation is compulsory attachment and auction in execution of a decree or order.

The court found that the authorities had misconstrued Section 165(7) and mechanically applied its threshold to a voluntary sale application that fell squarely under Section 165(6). The Collector's order of 10 March 2022 and the Board's order of 24 March 2023 therefore rested on a legally non-existent condition.

On the facts, the inquiry record showed no fraud, coercion, or exploitation. The Tahsildar's detailed report recorded that the proposed land—Khasra No. 130—is adjacent to the main Bodtara-Patharra road and carries residential and commercial importance. Its guideline value was Rs. 3,56,000/- and its market value Rs. 16,20,000/-. Shriram Sahu was offering Rs. 1,25,000/- for only 0.03½ acre, and Vijay had stated that no person from his own caste was willing to pay a comparable price. The court noted that even after the sale, approximately 3.07 acres would remain with the petitioner across multiple Khasra numbers.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 754, where the Supreme Court upheld a sale permitted by the Additional Collector under Section 165(6)(ii) of the then-applicable Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, holding that the authority had power to grant permission upon recording reasons in writing. While the facts of that case arose from Madhya Pradesh, the court found the statutory architecture and the Supreme Court's interpretation instructive.

Justice Prasad emphasised that the protective purpose of Section 165(6)—preventing exploitation and distress alienation of tribal land—cannot be read so broadly as to deprive a tribal landholder of the ability to meet genuine domestic and financial necessity. The discretion vested in the Collector must be exercised on a proper appreciation of the individual facts: the bona fide nature of the need, the extent of remaining land, the fairness of the transaction, and the absence of exploitation. A blanket refusal resting on a threshold drawn from an inapplicable sub-section satisfies none of those requirements.

The court also flagged that the market value of the land agreed upon between the parties was substantially lower than both the guideline rate and the market value established in the Tahsildar's inquiry—a factor the competent authority was directed to keep in mind when reconsidering the application.

Directions Issued

The court set aside both impugned orders—the Collector's order dated 10 March 2022 and the Board of Revenue's order dated 24 March 2023—and remanded the matter to the concerned Collector or competent authority for fresh consideration. The authority was directed to:

• Reconsider Vijay's application in light of the court's observations on the true scope of Section 165(6) of the Code, 1959.
• Assess the bona fide necessity of the petitioner, the extent of land remaining for sustenance after the proposed sale, and the fairness of the proposed transaction.
• Afford due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
• Bear in mind that the market value and guideline value of the land exceed the agreed consideration, and pass a reasoned order accordingly.
• Complete the exercise preferably within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order, noting that the original application was filed on 22 September 2021.

Outcome

WPC No. 2351 of 2023 was disposed of on 18 June 2026. The orders of the Collector, District Mungeli dated 10 March 2022 and the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur dated 24 March 2023 stand quashed. The petitioner's application for permission to sell 0.03½ acre out of Khasra No. 130, Village Raitrakhurd, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, is restored to the Collector for fresh consideration within three months.