1 2025:CGHC:37495 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3934 of 2025 Virendradhar Dubey S/o Late Pannadhar Dubey Aged About 65 Years R/o School Road, Ambikapur, P/s And Tehsil, Ambikapur, Distt- Surguja, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Commissioner Sarguja Zone, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, C.G. 3 - Nayab Tahsildar Tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja, C.G. 4 - Revenue Inspector Rani Mandal Ambikapur-06, Village Sonpurkala, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, C.G. 5 - Narendra Kumar Dugga Posted As Commissioner, Sarguja Zone, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, C.G. 6 - Ramesh Prasad Gupta S/o Ramnath Sao Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 05 Kusmi, Police Station And Tahsil Kusmi, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel lawyer As Caveator : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.08.02 12:22:08 +0530 2 Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- “a.That the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to call the entire records fo the case for its kind perusal. b. That the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing order dated 12.06.2025 passed by respondent n. 2 as it violates the provisions of Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh land Revenue Code as well as the Principle of Natural Justice, in the interest of Justice. c. That the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent no. 3 to carry out the demarcation of the land bearing Khasra No. 6/5 & 3/70 situated at Village Sonpurkala, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja, C.G. in order to ascertain the land owned by the petitioner in the interest of justice. d. That the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem fit in the interest of Justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2/Commissioner vide order dated 12.06.2025 which is an ex-parte order and respondent no. 2/Commissioner by exercising powers vested in it under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, but the said authority has passed the aforementioned order in a selective manner as the same has been passed in blatant violation of the basic principle of natural justice at the same time the provision of Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code has been followed in its letter and spirit. 3. He further submits that Section 50 of the said Code, as the said section provides for the authority of respondent no. 2/Commissioner to hear the case of revision and to pass any 3 appropriate order as it may deem fit, but at the same time, it also enunciates the procedure to hear the case and to pass the order or reversal only after issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the interested party, but no such notice was issued in the present case and directly on the very first effective date of hearing a final order has been passed, hence this petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent as well as the caveator opposes the reliefs sought by the petitioner by and submits that the order has been passed in accordance with law and need not to be entertained. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the document available with utmost circumspection. 6. Bare perusal of the present petition reveals that the allegation of the petitioner is that petitioner is the owner of the land in question i.e. land bearing Khasra No. 6/5 & 3/70 situated at Village Sonpurkala, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. On 27.05.2020 some portion of the land was sold from the aforementioned land to respondent no. 6-Ramesh Prasad Gupta and now he has started raising construction on the land of the petitioner, stating that it is his land. Being aggrieved by the act of respondent no. 6, petitioner approached the Respondent no. 3/Tahsildar who in turn called for a report from respondent no. 4/Revenue Inspector vide order dated 16.05.2025 and respondent no. 4 after visiting the spot, submitted the report dated 29.05.2025 4 before the respondent no. 2/Tahsildar, wherein it was mentioned that a boundary wall has been constructed by respondent no. 6- Ramesh Prasad Gupta on the land in question. Considering the same, respondent no. 3/Tahsildar passed an interim order dated 03.06.2025 in favor of the petitioner, thereby issued notice to respondent no. 6 and kept 09.06.2025 as the date for further hearing. Meanwhile, respondent no. 6 filed a revision on 10.06.2025 before the respondent no. 2/Commissioner against the order dated 03.06.2025 and the said case was heard finally on 12.06.2025 without even issuing notice to the petitioner, and the order of the Tahsildar/respondent no. 3 was quashed stating that the order of the Tahsildar was in violation to the CGLRC as well as the principles of natural justice. 7. Section 50 (iii) of the Land Revenue Code states as under:- “(iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard.” 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties this Court finds that respondent no. 3/Tahsildar granted interim order dated 03.06.2025 in favour of the petitioner. Issued notice to respondent no. 6 and kept 09.06.2025 as the next date of hearing. Being aggrieved of that, respondent no. 6 filed a revision before the respondent no. 2/Commissioner against the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner. The said case was first heard on 10.06.2025 however no order was passed on that day but on 5 12.06.2025 i.e. after two days final order was passed whereby the Respondent no. 2/Commissioner quashed the order of Respondent no. 2/Tahsildar stating that the order passed by respondent no. 2 has passed the order in violation of the CGLRC as well as the principles of natural justice and that has been passed without even issuing prior notice to the petitioner and without giving petitioner a single opportunity of hearing. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by respondent no. 2/Commissioner is unjust and against the provisions of Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. Hence, the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 is quashed and it is remanded back to the Respondent no. 2/Commissioner and is directed that Respondent no. 2/Commissioner after due diligence and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the respective parties adjudicate the case on its own merits and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law/rules/regulation. 10. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza