ORDER : VIVEK AGARWAL, J. 1.This writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of Gopal Singh Gond who have been substituted on death of Gopal Singh Gond being aggrieved of the order dated 29/10/2021 passed by the learned Additional Collector, District Umariya in Case No. 04/Nigrani/2020-21 affirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bandhavgarh in Case No. 489/ v -23/1977-78 on 30/03/1990 deciding the matter against father of the present petitioner. 2. It is submitted that the learned Additional Collector has recorded a finding in para 4 that the petitioners further vide sale deed dated 31/12/1957, transferred the property in favour of Shri Pitaiya Ahir, a fact discovered by him on the basis of Namantaran Panji No. 2 in which orders were passed on 4/01/1969. 3. It is submitted that these findings are contrary to the orders of the Collector, Umariya dated 4/10/2004 as contained in Annexure A-4 and also the order of the Commissioner, Shahdol in Case No. 620/Nigrani/2008-09. 4. It is pointed out that the learned Court of Collector has categorically recorded a finding that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 170 -B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, the land stood restored in favour of original aboriginal Tribe as Sub Divisional Officer, Bandhavgarh th had passed orders against interest of the Tribe on 30 March, 1990 and it was proved from the record of the subordinate courts that after implementation of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code on 2/10/1959, the land in question remained in the name of Scheduled Tribe farmer and in Section 170 (B), it is provided that if the non-tribal farmer fails to produce the return within two years from the implementation of the rules, then that land shall stand reverted in favour of the tribal farmer. 5. It is submitted that this order of the Collector dated 4/10/2004 has been affirmed by the Commissioner, Shahdol. 6. Therefore, in the absence of any sale deed brought on record, no indulgence could have been shown by the Additional Collector. 7. Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 in his turn submits that sale deed is not available because it was given to the concerned Patwari. 6. Therefore, in the absence of any sale deed brought on record, no indulgence could have been shown by the Additional Collector. 7. Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 in his turn submits that sale deed is not available because it was given to the concerned Patwari. Thereafter, drawing attention of this court to Annexure R-3, it is pointed out that statements of Gopal Singh were recorded by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer, Bandhavgarh on 24/07/1989 and, therefore, in view of the statements of Gopal Singh, no indulgence is called for and the impugned order is required to be maintained. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, when this court asked Shri Nilesh Kotecha as to for which revenue function, sale deed was given to the Patwari, he is unable to explain. 9. It is evident from the orders of the Additional Collector dated 29/10/2021 that it committed a patent error and the order suffers from apparent illegality in relying on the details of the mutation carried out on 4/01/1969 to have been passed on the basis of some sale deed which is not on record. Infact, sale deed would have justified the mutation and it is not vice versa. 10. There is no explanation for not getting the mutation carried out for a period of 12 years from the date of alleged purchase of property through an unregistered sale deed on 31/12/1957. Respondent has also not produced record of the mutation which was carried out on 4/01/1969, in as much as, statements of Gopal Singh in those mutation proceedings would have been material and not the statements recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer in 1989. 11. Infact, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bandhavgarh has not given any justification for recording statements of Gopal Singh on 24/07/1989 because there was no occasion for the Sub Divisional Officer to have recorded those statements on 24/07/1989 after almost more than twenty years of the so called mutation which was carried out in 1969. 12. Therefore, on such stray documents like Annexures R-3 and R-4, it cannot be said that on the basis of some genuine document like sale deed, mutation was carried out and respondent was put to possession of the said land. 12. Therefore, on such stray documents like Annexures R-3 and R-4, it cannot be said that on the basis of some genuine document like sale deed, mutation was carried out and respondent was put to possession of the said land. Infact, it is an admitted fact that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 170 -B as amended vide Act No. 50/1980 w.e.f. 24/10/1980 if a non- aboriginal tribe fails to file declaration within two years of the said amendment, then land is required to be treated to have been reverted in favour of the concerned aboriginal tribe. This provision has been made applicable from a retrospective date. 13. Admittedly, the respondent had not filed any return within the aforesaid period of two years and that has been noted by the learned Collector vide order dated 4/10/2004. 14. In view of such facts, when tested, then impugned order dated 29/10/2021 having failed to fulfil the requirements of Section 170 -B and coupled with the fact that there is no sale deed available on record, that order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 15. The impugned order dated 29/10/2021 is set aside. 16. In above terms, the petition is allowed and disposed of.