1 2025:CGHC:4642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1879 of 2022 1 Lalaram Dansena S/o Shri Jagnnath Dansena Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Kosamnara, Tahisil And District- Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 The Tahsildar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 The Nayab Tahsildar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Shri Mayur Khandelwal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 2 27/01/2025 Heard. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered with the decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 51 of 2016 (Pradeep Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), decided on 24.02.2016, therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of paragraphs 4 & 5 of the aforesaid order, which read as “4. The issue whether issuance of notice would be necessary to the party in whose favour the order, sought to be reviewed, was passed, need not detain this Court any longer because principles of natural justice has been violated. The order which was sought to be reviewed and in respect of which permission was obtained from SDO was admittedly passed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, exercise of review undertaken under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code necessarily requires notices to be issued to the petitioner. In taking this view, I am supported by the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Biharilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and connected matter, 2010 (2) MPHT 115 (DB) and another order of the Division Bench in the case of Shaheed Anwar Vs. Board of Revenue and another, 2000 RN 76. 5. In view of above, impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and are set aside. The concerned authority however shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.” 3 2. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.09.2014 passed by Nayab Tahsildar, order dated 09.02.2022 passed by Tahsildar and the order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the SDO whereby the permission to review was granted, are set aside. The competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti