1 2025:CGHC:52883-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 778 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector (Mahasamund) District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner (Raipur Division) Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Ishwarlal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ram Nivas Agrawal Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Bagbehra Tahsil Bagbehra District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Shankuntala Agrawal W/o Ishwarlal Agrawal Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Bagbehra Tehsil Bagbehra District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Board Bilaspur, Circuit Bench - Raipur, Through Chairman, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate through video conferencing. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR 2 the appellants as well as Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application i.e., I.A. No.01/2025, same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 05.05.2025 (Ishwarlal Agrawal and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1474 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein was allowed by learned Single Judge. 5. It is admitted position on record that respondents No.1 and 2 moved an application before the Collector, Mahasamund under Section 165(7) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as ‘Code’) seeking permission to sell the land in question. The Collector, Mahasamund conducted an enquiry upon the said land and rejected the application of respondents No.1 and 2 vide order dated 4.5.2012 assigning the reason that the lease of the land in question has not been issued by the Government in the name of the applicants (respondents No.1 and 2 herein). Therefore, granting the applicants permission to sell the 3 land does not seem justified. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, Mahasamund, respondents No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur under Section 44(1) of the Code. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur having being heard the contention of the parties passed the order on 09.11.2012 and rejected the appeal filed by respondents No.1 & 2 and maintained the order passed by the Collector, Mahasamund. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, respondents No.1 and 2 instituted a Revision under Section 44(2) of the Code before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 12.08.2013 rejected the revision filed by respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 thereafter filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue seeking to revisit and reconsider its earlier order passed on 12.08.2013. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 14.07.2014 allowed the review petition filed by respondents No.1 & 2 and set-aside the order passed by the Collector, Mahasamund dated 04.05.2012, holding that the order of the Collector is contradictory and paradoxical in nature. It was further held by the Board of Revenue that the Collector, Mahasamund in one hand denied the land of respondents No.1 and 2 as lease land and on the other hand, it is referred that the land in question is a lease land which was allotted under the direction of the Government. Thereafter, the Collector, Mahasamund reopened the case (Case No. 4 02/8/21/2014-14), vide its order dated 25.06.2015 and further directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mahasamund to submit an enquiry report in order to ascertain the status of the land. Respondents No.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the Collector, Mahasamund, again preferred an appeal under Section 44(1) of the Code before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 03.09.2015 on the sole ground that the order challenged in the revision is interlocutory in nature and hence, cannot be interfered with. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, respondents No.1 and 2 again approached the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue on 27.11.2020 allowed the revision and set-aside the order passed by the Collector, Mahasamund & the Commissioner and further directing the Collector, Mahasamund to grant permission to sell the land in question in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 submitted the copy of the order passed by the Board of Revenue before the office of the Collector, Mahasamund for its proper compliance, so that the necessary permission to sell the land can be granted within the specified time limit of 60 days. The Collector, Mahasamund drew the proceeding further and passed the order on 10.07.2023, holding that the appellate authority / Board of Revenue has no right to remand the matter back to decide the Revenue Officer subordinate to it as per Section 49(3) of the Code. Against which, 5 respondents No.1 and 2 filed review petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue by order dated 11.09.2024. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 10.07.2023 and 11.09.2024, respondents No.1 and 2 preferred writ petition. 7. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order while allowing the writ petition held that the order dated 27.11.2020 was not an order of remand, but a final order on merits, and the Collector erred in refusing compliance and directed the Collector to grant permission to sell the land within 60 days. However, as per Section 165(7-b) of the Code, any person holding government land or leasehold land, which later converts into Bhoomiswami rights, cannot transfer such land without prior permission from the Collector. In the present case, the writ petitioners had purchased the land in 1987-88 from the original lessees without obtaining such permission, rendering them ineligible to be treated as lawful leaseholders under Section 158(3) of the Code. Moreover, the power of review under Section 51 of the Code, read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, can only be exercised where new facts are discovered or an error apparent on the record is shown. The Board of Revenue’s review orders dated 14.07.2014 and 27.11.2020 do not satisfy these conditions and instead amount to a re-appreciation of facts, treating the review as an appeal in disguise. Hence, this writ appeal. 6 8. Learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State submits that the impugned order dated 5.5.2025 passed by learned Single Judge is perverse, unjust and contrary to law, having been passed without proper appreciation of facts and legal provisions. Learned Single Judge failed to consider Section 165(7-b) of the Code which mandates that any person holding government or leasehold land that later converts into Bhoomiswami rights cannot transfer such land without prior permission from the Collector. In the present case, the original leaseholders, Tulsiram and Sukhau, transferred the subject land to respondents No. 1 and 2 (writ petitioners) in 1987–88 without obtaining such permission, thereby rendering the transaction void under Sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Code. Despite this, learned Single Judge erroneously treated them as lawful leaseholders. Further, the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising powers of review under Section 51 of the Code and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC without discovery of new facts or an error apparent on record. The Board of Revenue’s review orders dated 14.07.2014 and 27.11.2020 effectively reappreciated the merits of the case, amounting to an appeal in disguise, which is impermissible in law. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650, wherein the Supreme Court has categorically held that review power is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot substitute one view for another. Therefore, the 7 findings recorded by learned Single Judge, based on such illegal review orders, are unsustainable and the impugned order dated 5.5.2025 passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 through video conferencing opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/State and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents No.1 and 2 herein, in which no interference is called for. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11. The core issues for determination before this Court are (i) whether the review orders dated 14.07.2014 and 27.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue were validly made under Section 51 of the Code? Or (ii) whether learned Single Judge was justified in relying upon those review orders to direct the Collector to grant permission to sell the land? 12. The sequence of events is undisputed. The Collector, Mahasamund vide order dated 04.05.2012, rejected the application of respondents No.1 and 2 seeking permission to sell the land under Section 165(7) of the Code, observing that no 8 lease had ever been issued by the Government in their names. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, affirmed the Collector’s order on 09.11.2012 and the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision on 12.08.2013. The respondents thereafter invoked review jurisdiction before the Board of Revenue, which, by its order dated 14.07.2014, set aside the earlier orders. Subsequently, upon further proceedings, another order dated 27.11.2020 was passed by the Board of Revenue directing the Collector to grant permission to sell the land. These two review orders are the foundation of the reliefs granted by learned Single Judge. 13. The power of review under Section 51 of the Code and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is a narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction, exercisable only upon (a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within the knowledge of the party despite due diligence, or (b) an error apparent on the face of the record. 14. In the present case, neither the order dated 14.07.2014 nor that dated 27.11.2020 discloses any discovery of new material or mistake apparent on record. Instead, both orders show that the Board of Revenue reappreciated existing facts and substituted its own conclusions for those reached earlier. Such exercise is beyond the scope of review and amounts to sitting in appeal over its previous decision, which is legally impermissible. 15. The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas (supra) has held that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise. The Board of Revenue, 9 therefore, acted without jurisdiction in passing the said review orders. 16. It is an admitted fact that the land in question was Government lease land. The alleged transfer in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 in 1987–88 was effected without prior permission of the Collector, as required under Section 165(7-b) of the Code. Such transfer being contrary to a statutory prohibition is void ab initio and conveys no valid title or right to respondents No.1 and 2. Under Section 158(3) of the Code, no person can claim to be a lawful lessee or transferor of land if the initial transfer itself was illegal. Therefore, respondents No.1 and 2, having no subsisting leasehold rights, were not competent to seek permission for sale under Section 165(7) of the Code. 17. Learned Single Judge, while directing the Collector to comply with the review orders of the Board of Revenue, failed to examine the legality and validity of those review orders. Since the orders of the Board of Revenue were themselves invalidly passed, the consequential direction to grant permission to sell the land cannot stand. Once the foundation is found to be illegal and unsustainable, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge must necessarily fall. 18. During the course of hearing, when specifically queried, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 could not produce any valid lease document issued in their names, nor could he point out any 10 material in the writ petition evidencing such title. Their claim over the land, therefore, is unsupported by any legal instrument or statutory authority. 19. In view of the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 5.5.2025 passed by learned Single Judge suffers from serious legal infirmity and cannot be sustained. 20. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.5.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1474 of 2025 is set aside and consequent thereto, writ petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu