Transfer of tribal land to non-tribals without prior Collector permission is void and confers no title. Case Summary: Context: The Appellant challenged the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding land originally owned by members of the Gond community (a Scheduled Tribe). Key Legal Issue: Whether a registered sale deed executed by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favor of a non-tribal person, without the prior permission of the Collector as required under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is legally valid. Court’s Holding: The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the 1994 sale deed was void and ineffective as the mandatory prior permission from the Collector was not obtained for the transfer of tribal land to a non-tribal person. The Court further noted that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe recognized in Chhattisgarh. Legal Takeaway: Non-compliance with the statutory requirement of obtaining the Collector’s prior sanction for the alienation of tribal land to a non-tribal person renders the transaction *void ab initio*, precluding any claim to title or possession. Concurrent findings of fact regarding such statutory violations and possession cannot be interfered with in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC unless proven perverse.

The plaintiff (appellant) filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding 0.55 acres of land (Khasra No. 480/1-ख), claiming ownership via a registered sale deed dated 08.06.1994 from vendors Mahetaru and Ghasiram.

While mutation was initially granted in 2004, it was cancelled by the Naib Tehsildar on 07.10.2004, restoring the names of the original owners.

The original owners subsequently sold the land to Mohan Singh (Defendant No. 4/5) via a registered sale deed in 2005.

The defendants contended that the 1994 deed was fraudulent, executed without the required Power of Attorney, and violated statutory protections for tribal land.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding the 1994 sale deed void and the plaintiff's possession unproven.

1. Whether the sale deed dated 08.06.1994 was legally valid and effective to confer title, given the restrictions on the transfer of tribal land under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

2. Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's lack of title and possession involve a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC.

The Court primarily applied Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which mandates prior permission from the Collector for any transfer of land from a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a non-tribal person.

It further applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which restricts the scope of second appeals to "substantial questions of law" and prohibits interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse.

The Court also relied on the principle from State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) 8 SCC 637, establishing that concurrent findings are binding unless recorded de hors the pleadings or based on a misreading of material evidence.

The Court found that the vendors belonged to the Gond community (a Scheduled Tribe) and the land was situated in a notified Scheduled Area.

Since the plaintiff failed to prove he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh or that he obtained the Collector's prior permission, the 1994 sale deed was held void ab initio under Section 165(6) of the Land Revenue Code.

The Court noted significant discrepancies in the plaintiff's case, including the absence of a Power of Attorney for the sale and the fact that the plaintiff's father allegedly misused his official position as a government officer to obtain the deed.

The Court observed that the revenue records (B-1 and Khasra Panchshala) supported the possession and title of the subsequent purchaser, Mohan Singh.

The Court concluded that the challenges raised by the appellant were essentially factual and did not meet the threshold of a "substantial question of law" required for interference under Section 100 CPC.

The 1994 sale deed was declared void for non-compliance with Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and upheld the judgments of the lower courts.

No substantial question of law was found to exist.