1 2025:CGHC:13097 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1444 of 2025 1 - Arvind Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Gunishchandra Nayak Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Village Jaso, Police Station Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For State/Respondents : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/03/2025 1. The petitioner is questioning the act of respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur by which even after filing of application for review which is pending for consideration since long back is not being decided by respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner. Earlier also, vide WPC No.524 of 2016, the petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the order which is sought to be reviewed has been reviewed Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.17 20:48:58 +0530 2 without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without noticing him, as such it is illegal. This Court has set aside the order and has directed the concerned authority to initiate fresh proceeding after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The aforesaid order was passed on 29.2.2016. On the basis of aforesaid order, the Board of Revenue re-initiated the proceedings and after hearing the matter, passed order dated 18.7.2018 by which the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur directed for review of the order dated 16.4.2014 in Case No.94-B/121/2013-2014. The matter was again initiated for hearing, however, again, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner and vide order dated 14.2.2019, the Additional Commissioner has passed the final order. The allegation of the petitioner is that he has never appeared in the said case and it has not been informed to him, however, in the order, it has been illegally held that the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing. From perusal of the order sheet, it does not appear that the petitioner was present there before the order was passed and no signature of the petitioner is affixed in the order sheet or in the final order which fortified the case of the petitioner that behind his back the order has been passed. It has been contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has never executed any vakalatnama in the review case. The appearance of the petitioner marked by respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner is also incorrect as no vakalatnama etc. was filed on behalf of the petitioner and as such the order impugned dated 14.2.2019 is illegally passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that he has not filed any vakalatnama nor he has engaged any Advocate on his behalf. Therefore, the order impugned dated 14.2.2019 is per se illegal. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the revision petition has already been dismissed for want of prosecution, as such no relief can be granted in this petition. He further 3 submits that the petitioner has made his appearance, as such in the subsequent stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not present and the order has been passed behind his back. However, it has not been disputed that in the order sheet the petitioner has made any signature etc. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be allowed to file an application for review under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 4. Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code reads as under: “51. Review of orders. - (1) The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit; Provided that— (i) if the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate; (i-a) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order; 4 (ii) no order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are pending be reviewed; (iii) no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order. (2) No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). (3) For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue Officer who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom there is no successor in the district. (4) An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on revision shall not be reviewed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority.” 5. Considering the overall aspect of the matter, especially considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition supported by his affidavit stating that he had not filed any vakalatnama and he had not appeared in the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is incorrectly submitting that he has not filed vakalatnama. A perusal of the order sheet goes to show that there was no signature of the petitioner affixed in the order sheet as well as in the order impugned. The said order sheet also does 5 not bear any endorsement that the copy of the order has been supplied to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.2.2019 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur for hearing the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that first the petitioner is required to be given appropriate opportunity of hearing. If aforesaid review application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh