1 2025:CGHC:20547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1474 of 2025 1 - Ishwarlal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ram Nivas Agrawal Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Bagbehra Tahsil Bagbehra District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Plaintiff). 2 - Smt. Shankuntala Agrawal W/o Ishwarlal Agrawal Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Bagbehra Tehsil Bagbehra District - Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector (Mahasamund) District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Defendants). 2 - Commissioner (Raipur Division) Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Board Bilaspur, Circuit Bench - Raipur, Through Chairman, Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. By way of petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order impugned dated order dated 10.07.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 (Collector - Mahasamund) Annexure P/1 and 11.09.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3 (C.G Land Revenue Board) - Annexure P/2. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may be please to impose heavy cost upon the Respondent No.1 for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony to a senior citizen by abusing powers envisaged upon him as a Collector.” 2. The petitioners are challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Collector, 3 Mahasamund, which refused to comply with the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh (wrongly written as Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Board in the array of the petition). The petitioners are also challenging the order dated 11.09.2024 by which Board of Revenue has refused to entertain review application filed under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The petitioners are senior citizens, they were granted lease of land bearing Khasra No. 149/2 area 0.809 hectares, now new Khasra Nos. bearing 769, 773/1, 770, 774/2, 774/3, 773/2 and 773/3 and are holding the same since last 38 years. After grant of lease they are in peaceful possession of land in question. Due to some exigency in order to pay of the bank loans, the petitioners were required to sale the said land as such they have moved an application for permission to sale the land before the Collector, Mahasamund under Section 165 (7) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. After receipt of said application a report was summoned by the Collector upon which the Tahsildar (Bagbehra) conducted an enquiry and has submitted his report. Without any apparent reason, the Collector, though holding that the petitioners are in possession of the said lease land, had illegally held that the lease was not granted in accordance with law while passing the order dated 04.05.2012. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order by the Collector an 4 appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Raipur, however, the Commissioner vide its order dated 09.11.2012 has rejected the appeal and has confirmed the order passed by the Collector. 4. Against the order of Commissioner a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, however, it has came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2013. 5. Since, the petitioners are dissatisfied with the order passed by the Board of Revenue, they preferred a review petition seeking review of the order dated 12.08.2013. The review application was considered and allowed by the Board of Revenue while setting aside the order passed by the Collector by holding that the order passed by the Collector is erroneous and without their being any foundation, the lease was doubted. 6. The concerned Board of Revenue has further allowed the application of the petitioners seeking permission for sale of the land as such the petitioners have again approached the Collector, Mahasamund seeking compliance of order dated 14.07.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, however, the Collector has not complied the said order and has again re- opened the case while directing the Sub Divisional Officer ( R ) , Mahasamund to submit an enquiry report vide its order dated 25.06.2015. 7. The petitioners again filed an appeal before the Commissioner, 5 Raipur, however, the Commissioner has dismissed the same vide its order dated 03.09.2015 stating that it’s an interlocutory order and it can not be interfered. The order passed by the Commissioner was further challenged before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has passed a detailed order dated 27.11.2020 while setting aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner and while directing the Collector, Mahasamund to grant permission to sale land in favour of the petitioner within a period of 60 days. 8. The petitioners again approached before the concerned Collector for compliance of order dated 27.11.2020 but the Collector, Mahasamund instead of complying the aforesaid order has held that the Board of Revenue has no right to remand the matter back to decide the Revenue Officer subordinate it as per Section 49 (3) of the Land Revenue Code. 9. By ignoring the fact that vide order dated 27.11.2020 no order of remand has been passed but the Board of Revenue while setting aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner have specifically directed that the Collector to grant permission to sale the land to the petitioners within a period of 60 days as such it cannot be said to be an order of remand, hence, the Collector has committed an illegality while passing the said order. 10. The petitioners inspite of having orders in their favour have 6 further approached before the Board of Revenue seeking compliance of its order dated 27.11.2020, however, the Board of Revenue instead of passing any order has held that under revisional jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Land Revenue Code. No orders can be passed the petitioners may approach by filing contempt proceedings and not by filing review petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue are erroneous by passing the impugned orders dated 10.07.2023 and 11.09.2024. From the bare perusal of order dated 27.11.2020, it is apparent that detailed order has been passed by the Board of Revenue while directing the Collector, Mahasamund to grant permission to the petitioners to sale their land within a period of 60 days which cannot be said to be an order of remand. The Board of Revenue after considering the entire aspect has rightly passed the order while setting aside the earlier order of the Collector. It is not an order of remand passed by the superior authority in any appeal as stated in the order of Collector. Section 49 (3) of the Land Revenue Code states that it is in an appeal in which no order of remand can be passed by the higher Revenue authorities. The higher Revenue authorities are required to pass an appropriate orders on merits as such the impugned orders are illegal and required to be quashed. 7 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the order passed by the Collector as well as Board of Revenue is under challenged is in accordance with law and it is not required to be interfered with. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. From the perusal of order dated 27.11.2020 it is quite vivid that while considering the entire aspect of the matter the Board of Revenue has rightly directed the Collector to grant permission to sale the land of the petitioners under Section 165 (7) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and there is nothing to show that any order in respect of remand has been passed by the Collector in an appeal. In fact, the revision was allowed. 15. For ready reference, Section 49 (3) of the Land Revenue Code is quoted below:- 49. Power of appellate authority. -[(3) After hearing the parties, the Appellate Authority may confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed against; or may take such additional evidence as it may consider necessary for passing its order: Provided that the Appellate Authority shall not remand the case for disposal by any Revenue Officer subordinate to it.] 16. The Board of Revenue has passed the aforesaid order in 8 revision, and further, the Board of Revenue has not passed any order for remand. The Board of Revenue has passed an order on merits while directing the concerned Collector, Mahasamund, to pass an order giving permission to the petitioner the sell the land within a period of 60 days, which cannot be said to be a remand order. The Collector was erroneous in holding that the order dated 27.11.2020 is an order of remand under Section 49 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The Board of Revenue has also not considered this aspect and has held that the petitioners have to file a contempt petition in this respect. When the orders are being passed by the Collector by adopting technicalities of the case, it is required to pass appropriate orders by the higher Revenue authorities, like the Board of Revenue. Time and again orders are being passed by the higher authorities which are being negated by the Collector, Mahasamund, which in the opinion of this Court is not else but judicial indiscipline by the Revenue Officer. 17. In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh & Ors reported in 2016 (1) SCC 72, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “(4) There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self sustaining one, in that it should contain all the 9 reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any Authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, 1978 2 SCR 272, of which the following paragraph deserves extraction: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1952) 1 SCR 135: Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of Explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public 10 authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” 18. In the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue requires to be quashed, and accordingly it is quashed. 19. The Collector, Mahasamund, is directed to grant permission to sell the land of the petitioners as stated in his application, within a period of 60 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. 20. The Collector, Mahasamund, is further directed to make all endeavors to grant permission within the aforesaid period so that the petitioners who are senior citizens and are approaching Revenue Authorities since 2011 may not be further required to approach the Courts again. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 22. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat