1 2025:CGHC:5782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 649 of 2025 1 - Smt. Yogeshwari Bai Dhruw W/o Krishna Kumar Dhruw Aged About 32 Years Sarpanch (Terminated) Gram Panchayat Champa, R/o Village- Champa, Tahsil- Baloda Bazar District- Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Cg) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Prescribed Authority Panchayat, Baloda Bazar District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Cg) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Baloda Bazar District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Cg) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baloda Bazar District- Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Cg) 7 - The Secretary Gram Panchayat Champa, Janpad Panchayat Baloda Bazar District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (Cg) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.31 14:26:31 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 31/01/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 04/11/2024 (ANNEXURE-P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Raipur, by which, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (For short ‘the Code, 1959’) has been rejected by an unreasoned and non-speaking order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal along with an application for grant of stay before the Collector, questioning the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Baloda-Bazaar dated 17/09/2024 whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch. In the appeal, the Collector, rejected the said application vide order dated 21/10/2024, which was challenged before the Commissioner, Raipur in Revision Case No. 45/A/89, and the Commissioner also rejected the application preferred under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 by an unreasoned and non-speaking order, which is contrary to the law and principle of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that as the revision has been filed by the petitioner questioning the rejection order of interim application passed by the Collector, the Commissioner has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner, which is just and proper. 3 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur dated 04/11/2024 (ANNEXURE-P/1). 5. From perusal of the order dated 04/11/2024 (ANNEXURE-P/1), it is quite vivid that while hearing the application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 i.e. an application for grant of stay, the Commissioner, Raipur, rejected the application without assigning any reason, by a non-speaking order, whereas, the Commissioner had to pass an reasoned and speaking order after considering the case of the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. 6. Therefore, the order dated 04/11/2024 (ANNEXURE-P/1) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Raipur to decide the application under Section 52 of the Code afresh by a speaking and reasoned order by Monday i.e. on 03/02/2025. The petitioner shall approach before the Commissioner, Raipur along with copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. Certified copy today. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul