1 2025:CGHC:6643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5384 of 2024 1 - Gurucharan Singh S/o Late Basant @ Balvant Singh, R/o Purana Vannaka, Chainpur, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh - Chirmiri- Bharatpur ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi, Mantralaya Atal Nagar. Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District- Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (Cg) 3 - Additional Collector Baikunthpur, Distt.-Surguja (Cg) 4 - Sub Divisional Office(Revenue) Manendragarh Dist- Manendragarh Chirmiri -Bharatpur (Cg) 5 - Raghunath Singh Gond S/o Late Vikram Singh Gond Aged About 57 Years R/o Purana Van Naka, Chainpur, Tah.- Manendragarh , Dist- Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.06 17:18:34 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 01/06/2023 passed by the respondent/Collector in Case No.Case No.202209330400008/3304/RVI/A-6, by which, he has granted permission to review the order dated 14/10/2022 in Case No.202209330400008/A-6/2021-22. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the Collector dated 01/06/2023 is absolutely illegal and contrary to law as the Collector while granting permission to review the order of the SDO, no opportunity of hearing was provided to all the parties and no notices were issued to the affected parties, hence, the order of the Collector is a clear violation of Section 51 of the C.G.L.R.C and the observation made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP227/3225/2011, where it has been observed that the opportunity must be granted to the affected party before granting permission to review the order and the sanctioning authority must comply its judicial mind before granting sanction. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State and counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the order passed by the Collector is an appealable order and even there is no need to grant opportunity of hearing to the affected party before granting permission to the affected party. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order dated 01/06/2023, by which, the Collector has granted permission to review the order of the SDO dated 14/10/2022. 5. The order is not reflecting that any notice was issued to the parties, who were affected to the order for which permission has been granted for review of the said order. In order to consider the plea raised by the petitioner, it would be expedient to notice Section 51 (1) (I) and (i-a) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 as under:- “51. Review of orders.-(1) The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his 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 4 first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate; 6. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue and another1 has held that under first proviso to Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 sanction for review by Board or Revenue Officer cannot be granted without notice and hearing the other side. (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. 7. Similarly, in the matter of Ravi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others2, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that power to sanction for review cannot be granted by the sanctioning authority mechanically and the order must show application of mind and held as under:- “21. A power of Review is vested in the Court so that the said Court can correct the wrong which has been committed by it. It may be a case where the same Court/authority after learning about the wrong committed by it wants to correct the wrong. It can exercise the powers either on an application or suo motu. In case of a revision the superior Court 1 2000 RN 76 2 2000 (I) MPJR 528 5 invested with powers of revision want to correct the wrong committed by his subordinate. The superior Court may exercise these powers suo motu or on an application by the aggrieved party. The powers infact are such which can be exercised by the same court or by the revisional Court because each of the court wants to correct the wrong. In case of review the anxiety is of the same Court while in the case of revision the anxiety is of the superior Court. While granting permission for review the authority is not required to give a mechanical sanction. The order must show application of mind. It must appear form the order that the authority was not swayed away, but the order must show that it has considered the facts and after application of the mind has granted the permission……..” 8. The principle of law laid-down in Shaheed Anwar (supra) and Ravi Narayan (supra) has been further followed in Biharilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others3 reiterating that sanction for review cannot be granted by sanctioning authority without affording opportunity of hearing to the other side and 3 2010 (2) MPHT 115 (DB) 6 sanction order must show application of mind and it has been held as under:- “12. It is further to be seen that a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shaheed Anwar Vs. Board of Revenue and another, 2000 Revenue Nirnay 76, has observed that under Section 51 Proviso 1 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 sanction for review by Board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without any notice to and hearing other side. A juxtapose reading of the judgment in the matters of Ravi Narayan and Shaheed Anwar (supra), would spell out that review for sanction cannot be granted without affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side and the review cannot be made mechanically. The scheme of Section 51 and the principles of natural justice if are taken up together they will make it clear that opportunity of hearing is to be granted to the other side so that it may convince the Sanctioning Authority that case on hands is not worth grant of sanction for review. He can also convince the authority that because of the lapse of time the authority should not now exercise the powers of review 7 or granting sanction. The other side can well convince the authority that the case on hands is not such where absolute illegality has been committed and possibility of the other view would not justify grant of sanction for review.” 9. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector, Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, who would hear the petitioner and respondent No.5 on the question of granting permission to review the order of SDO dated 14/10/2022 and pass an order afresh within a period of two months from the date of first hearing. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur on 21/02/2025. 10.In view of above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep