Order : Seeking quashing of order dated 30.04.2013 in Land Sale Permission Appeal No. 23 of 2009-10, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner and other two persons namely, Shanti Tuti and Sunita Keroline Tuti purchased 4 decimals of land in Plot No. 50, Khata No. 6, Mouza Joypatkari Tand through registered saledeed dated 31.08.2002. The petitioner and those two persons purchased another 4 decimals land through registered saledeed from one Bibi Jainual Nisha. In this manner, the petitioner along with Shanti Tuti and Sunita Kerolina Tuti acquired 8 decimals land in Mouza Joypatari Tand, Giridih and they got their name mutated in the revenue record. Subsequently, the petitioner agreed to sell his share in the above property to the said Shanti Tuti and Sunita Kerolina Tuti who are also members of scheduled tribe. Accordingly, an application under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act was presented for grant of permission and the Land Revenue Deputy Collectorrespondent no.3 granted permission on 21.11.2009 vide Land Sale Permission Case No. 48/200910. The wife of the petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner challenging order dated 21.11.2009 granting permission for sale which has been allowed on 30.04.2013. In the meantime, application for valuation under Section 47(A) of the C.N.T. Act was filed which was registered as Valuation Case No. 01 of 201011. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4528 of 2013 seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner however, during the pendency of the writ petition the Deputy Commissioner passed order dated 14.05.2013 declining the application on the ground that permission granted by the respondent no. 3 for sale of the said land was cancelled. The writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to challenge order dated 30.04.2013 by which appeal preferred by the wife of the petitioner was allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands comprised in saledeeds dated 31.08.2002 and 23.08.2002 were acquired by the petitioner from his own income and it was not joint family property. The petitioner pleaded before the appellate authority that the family has other joint family property in West Singhbhum however, permission granted vide order dated 21.11.2009 has been cancelled. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P.V submits that permission for sale was obtained on misrepresentation. It was not disclosed to the respondent no. The petitioner pleaded before the appellate authority that the family has other joint family property in West Singhbhum however, permission granted vide order dated 21.11.2009 has been cancelled. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P.V submits that permission for sale was obtained on misrepresentation. It was not disclosed to the respondent no. 3 that a house has been constructed over the said land. Moreover, the petitioner or his family has no other land at Giridih thus, permission for sale could not have been granted. 4. It is not in dispute that permission to sell tribal land would not be accorded in cases where the family becomes landless. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition the petitioner has admitted that he does not possess land in the district of Giridih. The land in question is situated in the same district. Though, the petitioner has taken a plea that his mother acquired about 24.5 decimals of land in village Iti within Bandgaon Police Station, West Singhbhum, no document in support of such claim has been produced by the petitioner. Moreover, I find that the appellate authority has noticed that the the intervenor contended that the petitioner made false statement that his mother has acquired 24.5 decimals land. The appellate authority has also noticed that permission was granted for sale of land and not land along with house. The wife of the petitioner has pleaded that she is residing in the said house. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.