1 2025:CGHC:53033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5037 of 2025 1. Rambilas Sahu S/o Late Shri Pratiram Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Chhurikala, Post Chhurikala, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2. Collector Korba, District Korba C.G. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Katghora, District Korba C.G. 4. Tahsildar, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Chouhan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “(i) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 (ii) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash / set aside the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 and order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 (annexure P- 1), in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has purchased land, subject matter of writ petition, from Budhwar, Kotwar of village Chhurikala, through registered sale deed dated 10.1.2007 and came in possession of the same. Petitioner submitted application for mutation of land based on sale deed before respondent No.4-Tahsildar, who allowed the application vide order dated 31.3.2007 and mutated the land, subject matter of writ petition, in the name of petitioner. Subsequently, petitioner received a notice from respondent No.4-Tahsildar for exercising jurisdiction of review of order dated 31.3.2007. The Tahsildar in a mechanical manner reviewed the order of mutation dated 31.3.2007, set aside the same and changed the nature of land, subject matter of writ petition, in revenue records from ‘service land’ to ‘grass land’. He submits that the Tahsildar has forwarded the letter of request to respondent No.3- Sub-Divisional Officer seeking permission to review the order dated 31.3.2007, which was granted vide order dated 10.9.2024 without issuing notice to petitioner and as such, grant of permission by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4-Tahsildar for exercising jurisdiction of review is 3 erroneous, in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to settled law. Since the order dated 10.9.2024 itself is erroneous, subsequent order dated 19.5.2025 passed by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar cancelling mutation of name of petitioner and declaring the land in question as ‘grass land’, are also not sustainable. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the coordinate Bench in WP(227) No.3225/2011. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the respondent No.2-SDO in exercise of jurisdiction to consider application seeking permission to exercise power of review, granted permission to respondent No.4-Tehsildar to review the order dated 31.3.2007 passed by him, which is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. He, however, submits that as the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is based on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP (227) No.3225/2011, which still holds the field, therefore, detailed parawise reply is not required and this writ petition may be disposed of considering his oral submission based on provision of Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’). 4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 4 5. Perusal of record would show that petitioner filed sale deed dated 10.1.2007 as Annexure P-2 which was executed by Budhwar Sai in favor of petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 0.024 hectare (0.06 decimal) out of Khasra No.1231 situate in PH No.27 village Chhurikala, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba. Petitioner has also enclosed copy of BI Kishtbandi Khatoni in which he has been shown as land owner. Annexure P-3 is the notice issued by respondent No.3 re-fixing revenue of land in question mentioning the ground that the land is being used for non-agriculture purpose. This notice is also addressed to the petitioner. 6. Section 51 of the Code of 1959 deals with review of orders. As per proviso (i) to Section 51 (1), if the Commissioner, Commissioner Land Records, Collector or District Survey 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 District Survey 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. 7. Proviso (i-a) to Section 51 (1) of the Code of 1959 provides that 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. 5 8. Claim of petitioner is that in view of proviso (i-a) to Section 51 of the Code of 1959, petitioner is entitled for hearing at the time of consideration of request / application forwarded by the Tahsildar to superior officer seeking permission of review and in support of this submission he relied upon decision of the coordinate Bench in WP(227) No.3225/2011 (supra), wherein it was observed thus:- “11. In the present case, the Board of Revenue by its order impugned has rightly set aside the order of the Collector granting permission to the Sub Divisional Officer to review its earlier order dated 20.7.2006, as the Collector neither noticed respondent No.4 nor heard him. The Board of Revenue has rightly held that without giving an opportunity of hearing and without noticing respondent No.4, permission could not have been granted, but the Board of Revenue instead of remitted the matter to the Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur to pass an order after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.4 has set aside the order in toto and thereby committed legal error and as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 12. Therefore, the order impugned is partly set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector, Surguja Ambikapur who would hear the petitioner and respondent No.4 on the question of granting permission to review the order dated 20.7.2006 and pass an order afresh within a period of three months from the date of first hearing of the parties that is fixed on 3.1.2017. “ 9. Above decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court still holds the field. 10. Admittedly, respondent No.2-SDO (R) has not issued notice to petitioner before allowing application seeking permission of review forwarded by the Tahsildar. 6 11. In view of the above facts of the case and in light of above quoted decision, in the considered opinion of this Court, the SDO (R) Katghora has committed an error of law in not providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner before granting permission to respondent No.4-Tahsildar for exercising jurisdiction to review the order dated 31.3.2007 passed by him and therefore, it is not sustainable in eyes of law. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 10.9.2024 passed by respondent No.3- SDO (R) Katghora, District Korba granting permission to respondent No.4-Tahsildar to review the order dated 31.3.2007; consequently subsequent order dated 19.5.2025 passed in review cancelling the mutation order dated 31.3.2007 and recording the land, subject matter of writ petition, as grass land in revenue record are hereby set aside. Respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer will be at liberty to consider application forwarded by respondent No.4-Tahsildar for grant of permission to review mutation order dated 31.3.2007 afresh and pass order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner herein. 13. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-