1 / 6 2025:CGHC:56528 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1071 of 2024 1 - Vijendra Prasad Sahu S/o Bhaiyalal Caste Teli, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhuneshwarpur, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhaiyalal S/o Late Jagjeet, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Khadapara, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Present Address R/o Village Bhuneshwarpur, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Tahsildar Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For State/respondents : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.24 10:26:37 +0530 2 / 6 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 20/11/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Tahsildhar, Bhaiyathan District - Surajpur (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities specifically the respondent No. 4, the Tahsildhar, Bhaiyathan to correct the revenue records in the name of the petitioner in respect of land in question. 10.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of review dated 25.05.2023 which was passed by the Tahsildhar, Bhaiyathan behind the back of the petitioner without giving opportunity of hearing.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that name of petitioners were mutated in the revenue records pursuant to order passed by the Tahsildar on 08.02.2022. Subsequently, Tahsildar has forwarded application seeking permission to review its earlier order dated 08.02.2022 before Sub Divisional Officer (R). Sub Divisional Officer (R) has granted permission for reviewing the order on 24.05.2023 without issuing any notice to petitioners and further after the permission of Sub Divisional Officer (R), Tahsildar, Bhaiyathan has passed order dated 25.05.2023 i.e. very next date reviewing its earlier order dated 3 / 6 08.02.2022 and cancelled the same without noticing to the petitioners. Sub Divisional Officer (R) as also Tahsildar passed the orders in violation of principles of nature justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that Tahsildar after finding its order to be not proper, has sought permission from Sub Divisional Officer (R) for reviewing its earlier order in accordance with the provision under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 ( for short “Code of 1959”) and after receipt of permission by Sub Divisional Officer (R) vide order dated 24.05.2023, has reviewed its earlier order dated 08.02.2022 vide order dated 25.05.2023. There is no error in the order passed by revenue authorities. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Perusal of revenue proceeding/order dated 23.05.2023 which is forming part of Annexure P-1 of writ petition would show that it is the order whereby Tahsildar- Bhaiyathan has recorded the proceedings in the order sheet seeking permission from Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) to review its earlier order passed by him in different revenue cases including case of the petitioners bearing Case No.202302262800003/B-121. It is also reflecting that order dated 08.02.2022 is the order of mutation of the name of petitioners in revenue records. In the order sheet dated 23.05.2023, it is no where mentioned that petitioner was noticed prior to moving an application 4 / 6 seeking permission from SDO (Revenue). Order sheet dated 24.05.2023 is proceeding drawn by SDO (Revenue) and perusal of the contents of order would show that SDO (Revenue) has only considered proceedings forwarded by Tahsildar and granted permission to Tahsildar to review its earlier order dated 08.02.2022 without issuing notice to petitioner and giving opportunity of hearing to them. 6. After getting permission from SDO (R) order dated 24.05.2023, Tahsildar reviewed its order dated 08.02.2022 on very next day i.e. 25.05.2023 without noticing to petitioners, in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. 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 sub-ordinate 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. 8. 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. 9. Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kailash Mishra Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. [WP (227) No. 3225/2011 decided on 09.12.2016] , has observed thus:- 5 / 6 “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 20.07.2006, 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 Collectore, 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 20.07.2006 and pass an order afresh within a period of three months from the date of first hearing of the parties that is fixed on 03.01.2017. ” 10. Above decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court still holds the field. 11. Admittedly, respondent No.4-SDO (Revenue) has not issued notice to petitioners before allowing application seeking permission of review forwarded by the Tahsildar. 12. In view of the above facts of the case and in light of above quoted decision, in the considered opinion of this court, SDO (Revenue)- Bhaiyathan has committed an error of law in not providing opportunity of hearing to petitioners before granting permission to respondent No. 3- 6 / 6 Tahsildar for exercising jurisdiction to review the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by him and therefore, it is not sustainable in law. 13. For the forgoing reasons, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 24.05.2023 passed by respondent No.4/SDO (R) granting permission to Tahsildar to review its earlier order dated 08.02.2022 is hereby set aside. Consequently, subsequent order passed by respondent No.3/Tahsildar pursuant to the permission granted by SDO (R) dated 25.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) is also set aside. 14. Matter is remanded back to respondent No.4/Sub Divisional Officer (R) to hear application of permission forwarded by Tahsildar afresh granting opportunity of hearing to petitioners and if permission for review is granted by Sub Divisional Officer (R) after hearing the petitioners, Tahsildar may also grant opportunity of hearing to petitioners before exercising its power of review. 15. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case but for observation made as above and the Revenue Authorities will be at liberty to decide the case on its own merits, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen