1 2025:CGHC:28069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 446 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Nimani S/o Shri Dharam Chand Nimani Aged About 59 Years R/o Flat No.-401, Rajat Centrum, Bhatagaon, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Collector District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Patan, District - Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sachin Nidhi, and Mr. Anjan Mishra, Advocates For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. With regard to the default pointed out by the Registry, Mr. Sharma, -2- learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Manoranjan Jaiswal Vs. M/s. Krishna Builders and another, Writ Appeal No.423 of 2021 decided on 24.07.2023, the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order passed by the Commissioner. 2. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Sharma and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Manoranjan Jaiswal (supra), the office objection is hereby ignored. 3. Heard on admission. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition seeing the following relief(s):- “i. To kindly call for entire records with respect to case number 348/ब-121/2023-2024 from respondent No.2. ii. To kindly quash/set aside the order dated 24.04 2025 in case number 348/ब-121/2023-2024 (ANNEXURE P/6) iii. To kindly quash order dated 11.12.2019 (ANNEXURE-P/3) which has already been set aside in Vasundhara Ayurvedic Anusandhan Kendra Private Ltd Company Vs State Of Chhattisgarh in Case No. 50/ब-121/2023-2024 by the respondent no. 2. iv. To kindly direct the respondent authorities to enter the name of petitioner in revenue records. V. To kindly pass any other order which the Hon'ble court deems fit in the larger interest of justice.” 5. Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased Survey 3 Nos.781, 782, 785 & 787 situated at Village Mahuda, Patwari Circle No.17, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) through the registered sale deeds dated 05.12.2013. He would further submit that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan received a complaint from the Economic Offence Wing of the State of Chhattisgarh against one Pankaj Lahoti, wherein, the allegations were made with regard to irregular purchase of Government lands. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) issued show cause notices to villagers as well as Pankaj Lahoti and the petitioner. The concerned Collector without affording any opportunity of hearing, canceled the sale deeds executed in favour of villagers, Pankaj Lahoti and the petitioner too. Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate would further argue that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order passed by the Collector dated 11.12.2019 before the Divisional Commissioner and the concerned Commissioner vide order dated 24.04.2025 directed the petitioner to implead Economic Offence Wing Raipur as a party respondent. Mr. Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate would also argue that the appeal preferred by one of the aggrieved persons was allowed by the Commissioner, Durg Division vide order dated 12.12.2023 in Case No.50/B/121/2023-24. It is also contended that the State through the Collector is already party to the proceedings and the relevant documents may be placed before the Commissioner by the Collector or its representative. He would pray to set aside the -4- order passed by the Commissioner dated 24.04.2025. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. Ms. Shukla would submit that on the complaint of the Economic Offence Wing, Raipur, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other villagers by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patan. She would further submit that after affording sufficient opportunity, the concerned Collector canceled the sale deeds executed in favour of villagers, Pankaj Lahoti and the petitioner. She would also submit that the Economic Offence Wing, Raipur is a necessary party in the matter, therefore, the Commissioner vide order dated 24.04.2025 has directed the petitioner to implead it as a party respondent. She would argue that impleading Economic Offence Wing as a party respondent would not affect the merits of the case. She would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. The petitioner purchased Survey Nos.781, 782, 785 & 787 situated at Village Mahuda, Patwari Circle No.17, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) through registered sale deeds dated 05.12.2013. A show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to the petitioner but the concerned Collector without 5 affording any opportunity of hearing canceled the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the said order. The Commissioner vide order dated 24.04.2025 directed the petitioner to implead the Economic Offence Wing, whereas the State of Chhattisgarh through Collector is already impleaded as a party respondent. 9. An appeal was preferred by one Vasundhara Ayurvedic Anusandhan Kendra Private Ltd. bearing Case No.50/B-121/2023- 24 where proceedings were initiated on the complaint of Economic Offence Wing and that appeal was allowed by the concerned Commissioner vide order dated 12.12.2023. In that appeal, no direction was issued to implead the Economic Offence Wing as a party respondent. 10.For the sake of argument, if there is a complaint or material against the petitioner, the State of Chhattisgarh or the Collector or its representative may place those documents before the concerned Commissioner and the Appellate Court may consider those documents while passing the final order. 11.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by the Commissioner is hereby set aside and the concerned Commissioner is directed to decide the pending appeal expeditiously. The State would be at liberty to place relevant -6- documents before the concerned Commissioner, if so advised. 12.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha