ORDER : The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh, whereby the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Collector, Barwani has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for fresh adjudication. 2. The facts of the case in short are, as under: - 2.1 The petitioner is a registered owner of the agriculture land bearing Survey No.88 area of 25.51 acres of Village Salkheda, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.). The predecessor of the petitioner purchased the aforesaid land from respondent Kalu vide registered sale-deed dated 06.03.1929 and placed in to possession. The said sale-deed was the subject matter of Second Appeal No.116 of 1960 (Kalu S/o Gulal v. Heeralal S/o Ramasa and Radhibai W/o Gulal). Vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.1962 second appeal was dismissed and the title of the predecessor of petitioner was confirmed. Thereafter, their names were mutated in the revenue records. 2.2 The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Barwani (M.P.) initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (herein after referred to as the Revenue Code) on 17.02.1977, that Kalu was an aboriginal tribe and the land was sold to Heeralal, without permission from the Collector, therefore, such a transaction is void. Vide order dated 12.04.1983, the Sub Divisional Officer directed Hiralal to hand over the possession of the land in question to Gulal and Radhibai within fifteen days. 2.3 Heeralal challenged the aforesaid order by way of an appeal before the Additional Collector, Khargone. Vide order dated 31.05.1988, the appeal was allowed and the order of SDO dated 12.04.1983 was set aside. 2.4 Kalu approached the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore by way of appeal. Vide order dated 28.07.1994 the said appeal was dismissed and the matter was closed as the same was not challenged by Kalu. 2.5 All of a sudden in the year 2012, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.) again started proceedings under Section 170-B of the Revenue Code on the basis of the report submitted by the Patwari Salkheda, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.). The Sub Divisional Officer suomoto registered Revenue Case No.04-A/23 of 2009-10 and issued notice to the petitioner and respondents Kalu. The Sub Divisional Officer suomoto registered Revenue Case No.04-A/23 of 2009-10 and issued notice to the petitioner and respondents Kalu. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 29.09.2012 directed that the petitioners to hand over possession of the land in question to aboriginal tribe Bholiya S/o Tantya, as legal heirs of Bholiya S/o Tantya, Kashiram S/o Kalu and their name be mutated in the revenue records. 2.6 Shantilal S/o Heeralal Mahajan challenged the aforesaid order by way of appeal before the Collector. Vide order dated 30.03.2016 the Collector dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, Shantilal approached the Board of Revenue, Gwalior. Vide order dated 06.02.2018 the Board of Revenue has recalled the order dated 31.05.1988 as well as set aside the order dated 30.03.2016 and remanded the matter back to the Collector. 2.7 Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 06.02.2018, inter alia on two grounds firstly that suo moto revisional power has wrongly been exercised after a period of thirty years i.e. beyond the period of limitation; and secondly, the first sale transaction from Radhibai and Ladubai w/o Gulal aboriginal tribe took place before the Revenue Code came into the force in the year 1959, hence could not have been examined under the provisions of Section 170-B of the Revenue Code. 3. After notice, respondents No.1 and 2, who are the legal heirs of Kalu, filed the reply by submitting that originally Gulal was the owner of the land in question he had two wives Radhibai and Ladubai. Both of them executed a sale deed dated 09.04.1929 in favour of Seth Ramasa. At that time, the son of Ladubai i.e. Kalu was minor, hence minor share in the land could not have been sold by them. Kalu challenged the aforesaid transaction and vide order dated 12.08.1937, the sale deed was set aside and the name of Kalu was mutated in the revenue records of 1960-61. Since Kalu was in possession in the year 1960-61, therefore, the provisions under Sections 170-A and 170-B of the Revenue Code were rightly exercised. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder by submitting that all the objections taken by the respondents were raised by Kalu in Second Appeal No.116 of 1960 which was dismissed vide order dated 02.03.1960. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder by submitting that all the objections taken by the respondents were raised by Kalu in Second Appeal No.116 of 1960 which was dismissed vide order dated 02.03.1960. Therefore, the respondents are estopped from raising the same issue again. The Board of Revenue did not consider the order passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No.116 of 1960, otherwise, the matter would not have been remanded back. During the pendency of this petition, Shantilal expired and his son Ashish Gupta was brought on record. 5. The State Government also filed a reply by submitting that the land Survey No.88 area of 25.51 acres of Village Salkheda, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.) was owned by Goliya Bhilala which was illegally transferred to non-tribe Shantilal. The then Barwani Council set aside the sale deed vide order dated 12.08.1937. Heeralal son of Ramasa filed a civil suit challenging the order Barwani Council which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.03.1953. Thereafter, Heeralal preferred an appeal in which the decree of possession of 19.51 acre was passed. Thereafter, Kalu filed a Second Appeal No.116 of 1960 against Heeralal which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 02.03.1962. 6. It is further submitted that anyone who is in possession of agricultural land from 2nd October 1959 to the date of amendment i.e. 1980 of the land of an aboriginal tribe should notify to the Sub Divisional Officer about such possession. Heeralal son of Ramasa did not inform the Sub Divisional Officer about the sale of land of Survey No.88 area 25.51 acres of Village Salkheda, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.), therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer rightly passed the order on 12.04.1983. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard Mr. Bharat I. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Sudhanshu Vyas, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 – State of Madhya Pradesh. 8. As per admitted facts Gulal had two wives Radhibai and Ladubai. Kalu was the son of Gulal through Ladubai. On 09.04.1929 Kalu was aged about 3 years and Gulal was no more. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Sudhanshu Vyas, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 – State of Madhya Pradesh. 8. As per admitted facts Gulal had two wives Radhibai and Ladubai. Kalu was the son of Gulal through Ladubai. On 09.04.1929 Kalu was aged about 3 years and Gulal was no more. Ladubai and Radhibai sold the agriculture land of Survey No.88 area 25.51 acres of Village Salkheda, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.) to Ramasa vide registered sale-deed dated 09.04.1929. Kalu after becoming major challenged the aforesaid sale-deed before the Barwani Council appointed by the Government of India upon the death of the Ruler, as the successor Ruler was minor. Vide order dated 12.08.1937 Barwani Council set aside the sale deed dated 09.04.1929. Thereafter, the State of Barwani was merged with the Madhya Bharat. Heeralal son of Ramasa filed a civil suit on 10.08.1949 alleging wrong dispossession, however, vide judgment dated 17.03.1953 the suit was dismissed. Thereafter the first appeal was filed in which the claim of 19.5 acres of land was allowed in favour of Heeralal S/o Ramasa. Second Appeal No.237 of 1954 was filed before the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court. Again the trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff Heeralal. The first appeal filed by Kalu was dismissed. Thereafter, Kalu filed Second Appeal No.116 of 1960. Vide judgment dated 02.03.1962 the second appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter the said order was not challenged before the Apex Court. Hence, the title dispute between Ramasa/Heeralal with Kalu had attained finality. Admittedly, Ramasa was not an aboriginal tribe. His son Heeralal sold the land to this petitioner Shantilal, therefore, the rigor of Section 170-B of the Revenue Code, 1959 would not apply. 9. When this second appeal was decided, the Revenue Code had already come into force. No such ground of applicability of Section 170-A and 170-B of the Revenue Code was raised before the High Court in the second appeal. After the dismissal of the Second Appeal Kalu wronly resorted to the remedy available under the Revenue Code by submitting an application under Section 170-A of the Revenue Code before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 17.02.1977 on the ground that he had been in possession of land and he was forcefully dispossessed in the year 1962. After the dismissal of the Second Appeal Kalu wronly resorted to the remedy available under the Revenue Code by submitting an application under Section 170-A of the Revenue Code before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 17.02.1977 on the ground that he had been in possession of land and he was forcefully dispossessed in the year 1962. The Sub Divisional Officer passed an order on 28.01.1980 in favour of Kalu. 10. The Sub Divisional Officer has found that the sale deed executed in the year 1929 bona fide and the said had attained finality by the judgment passed by the High Court and accordingly passed the order in favour of Heeralal. Kalu challenged the said order before the Collector by way of appeal. The Collector dismissed the appeal vide order dated 19.04.1982. Thereafter, Kalu preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was also dismissed on 28.07.1994. Therefore, the second time also, Kalu failed to get the sale deed declared void. After 1994, the matter virtually became dead so far as Kalu is concerned. 11. In the year 2012 again, Kalu started a dispute before the Sub Divisional Officer, who called the report from Patwari without considering the order dated 28.07.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order passed in Second Appeal No.116 of 1960 by this Court directed for handing over the possession and mutation of the name of legal heirs of Kalu and the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue both have affirmed the said order without examining the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal. 12. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the order passed by the High Court in the Second Appeal was not brought to the knowledge of the Sub Divisional Officer, Collector and the Board of Revenue in the third round of litigation. Even if the petitioners did not place the aforesaid orders on record when the order of the High Court had already been relied on by the Additional Collector in its order on 31.05.1988 and the Sub Divisional Officer in its order dated 12.04.1983. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer has unnecessarily reopened the matter vide order dated 29.09.2012 and directed for handing over the possession to the legal heirs of Kalu as well as recording their name in the revenue records. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer has unnecessarily reopened the matter vide order dated 29.09.2012 and directed for handing over the possession to the legal heirs of Kalu as well as recording their name in the revenue records. Therefore, the orders dated 29.09.2012, 30.03.2016 and 06.02.2018 are unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 13. Even otherwise, the land in question was sold in the year 1929 by an aboriginal tribe to a non-tribal, at that time, the Revenue Code was not in force. Thereafter, the title of Ramasa was affirmed in Second Appeal No.116 of 1960 by this High Court. Ramasa was admittedly a non-tribal and his son Heeralal sold the land to the petitioner, therefore, that is a transaction between non-tribe to non-tribe and no permission was required. Therefore, the transaction held on 09.04.1929 cannot be looked into under the provisions of the Revenue Code, as has been held by a Division Bench this Court in the case of Roopchand v. Board of Revenue Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior and others reported as 1995 Revenue Nirnay 184, in the case of Balvant Rai v. Collector, Jhabua & others reported as 1988 RN 169 (DB), in the case of Sarjoo Pandit v. Sitaram and another reported as 1995 MPLJ (SN) 19 (DB). 14. Even if all the grounds raised by the respondents are accepted, the power of review could not have been exercised beyond the period of limitation i.e. 180 days and this issue has also been decided by this Court in 2010 (3) MPJR 347 (DB), 1997 (6) SCC 71 and 2020 (2) RN 139 (DB). 15. In this case, the provision of Section 170-B of the Revenue Code applies to a transaction and transferred to a non-tribe between the period commencing on 2nd October, 1959 and ending on the date of commencement of amendment Act, 1980. The non-tribe was required to notify his possession within two years to Sub Divisional Officer but in this case, the first sale was made by the tribe to the nontribe much before 1959. 16. In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed, the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the cost of Rs.10,000.00/- (rupees ten thousand only) payable by the State of Madhya Pradesh.