1 2025:CGHC:44854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4686 of 2025 Ramdhar S/o Shivprasad Aghariya Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Dudunchuva Post Office Kedva Police Station And Tehsil - Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Khand, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) Revenue Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Gulab Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shyam Lal Sahu Occupation Village Kotwar Of Village Dudunchuva P.S. And Tehsil- Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Sukhchand S/o Late Jhadudas Occupation - Cultivation R/o Village Duduchuva Ps And Tehsil- Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 7 - Bhagvati Wd/o Late Jhadudas Occupation- Cultivation R/o Village- Dudunchu Ps And Tehsil- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Nande, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.03 17:21:20 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of this petition, petitioner sought the following relief(s) : “(i) to call for the whole record of the Additional Tehsildar Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) pertaining to impugned notice coupled with Application Annexure P-1 as well. (ii) to quash the Notice coupled with application (Annexure P-1) and proceeding thereof pending before learned Additional Tehsildar Saraipali District Mahasamund (C.G.). (iii) to grant any other suitable relief which is grantable to petitioner in the opinion of this Court for the ends of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that on 23.01.2009, petitioner has purchased the agriculture land through registered sale-deed (Annexure P-4) and thereafter the petitioner recorded as Bhumiswami and continuing with peaceful right interest and possession over the land Khasra No.1391, admeasuring area 0.31 hectare. He further contended that the petitioner is bonafide purchaser having right interest and possession since the date of registered sale- deed dated 23.01.2009. After lapse of 16 years, a complaint made by the Additional Tahsildar, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) and the Additional Tahsildar issued notice to the petitioner on 28.05.2025. 3 Thereafter, petitioner has made objection before the Additional Tahsildar, but the same was rejected by the Additional Tahsildar, Saraipali. Learned counsel also contended that the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar is without jurisdiction and misuse of process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and contended that the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar is as per letter dated 12.06.2024 sent by the State Government, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management and he further contended that the Additional Tahsildar has referred the matter to review before the Collector, therefore, there is no required to interfere in the order impugned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides 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] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of 2008], 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 4 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; (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.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties and provisions of Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. On perusal of the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.), it is crystal clear that at present the Additional Tahsildar has not passed any order against the petitioner, he has only rejected the objection made the petitioner and the matter is referred to the Collector for seeking permission to review which is permissible under the law, in 5 view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with a direction that if any cause of action arises in future, petitioner may file appropriate application/petition, if so desire. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant