Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the benami status of land transactions under Section 170-B.

The petitioner, a member of the Kanwar aboriginal tribe, challenged an order by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, which reversed the restoration of tribal land.

Originally, the petitioner’s husband, Muneshwar Sai, sold 1.446 hectares of land to Sadhu Sai (another tribal) in 1973 for ₹3,000

In 1974, Sadhu Sai, after obtaining the Collector's permission under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, sold the land to Manohar Lal Agrawal (a non-tribal) for ₹3,500

After 41 years, in 2015, Muneshwar Sai applied for land restoration under Section 170-B of the Code, alleging the 1973 sale was a "benami" transaction orchestrated by Agrawal to circumvent tribal land transfer restrictions

The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) and the Collector ordered restoration, but the Commissioner reversed this, finding the transaction valid

1. Whether Revenue Authorities possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate the "benami" or "sham" nature of a land transaction under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959

2. Whether the transaction in question was fraudulent or benami, warranting restoration of the land to the aboriginal owner

Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which provides for the reversion of land belonging to aboriginal tribes if transferred via fraud

Section 165(6), which regulates the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals

Khora (Dead) v. Mohar Sai and Others (2023) 14 SCC 767, which established that Revenue Authorities do not have the jurisdiction to determine if a transaction is benami or sham for the benefit of a non-tribal, as such powers under Section 165(6-c) do not extend to Section 170

The Court found that the Revenue Authorities (SDO and Collector) exceeded their jurisdiction by declaring the 1973 transaction "benami"

Under the principles established in Khora v. Mohar Sai, the inquiry into whether a tribal was an ostensible owner for a non-tribal beneficiary is outside the scope of Revenue Authorities' powers

Factually, the Court noted that the petitioner admitted during evidence that Manohar Lal Agrawal only came into possession after the second sale in 1974, contradicting the claim that the 1973 sale was a sham where Agrawal held immediate possession

Furthermore, the 1974 sale was conducted after a formal valuation and permission from the Collector, which had attained finality

The Court concluded that no fraud was established, and the passage of 40 years before filing the application further weakened the petitioner’s claim

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Commissioner's order