1 2025:CGHC:47716 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2223 of 2025 Kailash Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Doctor Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Tahsil - Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 -State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner (Revenue) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Forest Range Officer Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Meena Shashtri, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.09.2025. 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: 2 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order commanding the Respondents to quash the order dated 10-08-2022, 21-09- 2022 passed by the Respondent No.04 passed in Revenue Case No. 202206130600024/169 A-2, year 2021-22, letter dated 20-08-2022 (Annexure P-01). 10.2 Any other relief(s), which may deems fit, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case may be given to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that petitioner, his brothers as well as his mother are the owner of the their ancestral land/property bearing Khasra No.1992, area 0.06 Hectare, P.H. No. 16 situated at Nagri, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.), they are in continuous possession since long back, they submitted an application under Section 172 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (Act of 1959) for diversion of the land measuring area 0.04 Hectare out of area 0.06 Hectare before respondent No.4/SDO, which was allowed vide order dated 20-07-2022 after perusing the inspection/enquiry report and following all other prescribed procedure and, thereafter, petitioner with others have started the construction on the alleged land, however, all of sudden, respondent N.4 vide Annexure P-1 has set-aside the order dated 20-07-2022 in the review on it's own motion without obtaining sanction of the superior authority and others as per Section 51 of the Act of 1959. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 3 3. Learned State Counsel contended that respondent No.4 has rightly set-aside the order dated 20-07-2022 in the review after considering the inspection/enquiry report and all required formalities/procedure/law, hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including Annexure P-1. 5. For ready reference, Section 51 of the Act of 1959 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; (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; 4 (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.” 6. Perusal of order Annexure P-1 reveals that respondent No.4 has sou motu reviewed the matter without prior permission obtain from the Collector concerned, which is violation of Section 51(1) of the Act of 1959. 7. Considering facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the provision of Section 51(1) of the Act of 1959, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order Annexure P-1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-1 is hereby set-aside/quashed. However, respondent No.4/SDO (Revenue) will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with Section 51(1) of the Act of 1959, if so desire. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-