to the writ petition or to the writ appeal). Subsequently, he alienated the property to respondent No.6 on 20.05.2019 by executing registered sale deed without obtaining prior permission of the Collector or the competent authority as mandated under Section 165 (7-b) of the Code. The illegality came to the knowledge of the appellant as well as Vikesh Gupta (respondent No.5), the son of the vendor, in the year 2023. Accordingly, they made a complaint before the Collector on 6.7.2023. The Collector on consideration of the material vide its order dated 22.02.2023 set aside the sale in question in favour of respondent No.6. Assailing the same, respondent No.6 preferred the revision under Section 50 of the Code before the Commissioner, Surguja Division / respondent No.2. The Commissioner, taking note of the provision under Section 158(4) of the Code, held that after the lapse of 20 years, said Dwarika Gupta acquired absolute title over the property ( Bhumiswami right ) in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 158 of the Code. Thus, the complaint was not maintainable being filed after a lapse of more than 37 years. It was further observed that the transfer was made by virtue of a registered sale deed executed by the Bhumiswami , namely, Dwarika Gupta. As such, the Commissioner allowed the revision. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition. Although respondent No.5 filed the complaint along with the appellant, but he was impleaded as respondent No.5 to the writ petition.
