1 2026:CGHC:21213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1766 of 2026 1 - Girdhari Behera S/o Damarudhar Behera Aged About 66 Years Caste Gond (Scheduled Tribe) R/o Village Deriki, Naugaon, Distt. Jagatsinghpur, Odisha. 2 - Shyam Sundar Agrawal S/o Late Sita Ram Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Hose No. 604, Tower B, Metro Hights Telibandha Raipur District, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department S-041, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Simga District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar Simga District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Managing Director Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd., 37 Hargoving Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi 110092. 6 - Chief Executive Officer Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd. Village Ringani Tehsil Simga District, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 493113. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. Advocate General Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/05/2026 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioners from the office of respondents including private respondents by issuing a writ of certiorari for kind perusal, 10.2 This Hon'ble Court be pleased, to order the R/2 to grant permission to the petitioner No. 1 to sell his lands situated at Village Ringari Tehsil Simga Khasara No. 427, 27,25, and 105 total area 8.230 H. acres after giving opportunity to both the petitioners within the time frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and further to report this Hon'ble Court to report the proceedings of the sanction after the completion of the proceedings before the said court in this regard in this regard by restoring previous case No. 202007210100005/35 A/21 year 2019- 2020 and, 10.3 Further be pleased to setup an inquiry committee to report this Hon'ble 3 Court that how and in what manner the lands of the petitioner No. 1 situated at Village Ringari Tehsil Simga Khasara have been ap. 427, 27,25, and 105 total area 8.230 H. have been surrounded by the private respondents without following the of procedure of land acquisition as contained in "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013", without the knowledge, consent and information of the petitioner No.1. 10.4 Cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner against the respondents. 10.5 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the manner in which the proceedings for grant of permission to sell land under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 have been conducted and ultimately concluded by the revenue authorities. The seller, belonging to the Gond community, a Scheduled Tribe, had entered into an agreement to sell his lands bearing Khasra Nos. 427, 27, 25 and 105, admeasuring total area 8.230 hectares, 4 situated at Village Ringni, Tahsil Simga. Pursuant to the agreement dated 10.01.2020, an application seeking permission to sell the said land was submitted before the Collector on 28.02.2020, which was duly registered and processed. The matter was forwarded for inquiry to the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter to the Tehsildar, where proceedings were conducted on multiple dates and both parties participated. Inquiry reports, including those of the Patwari and Tehsildar, were submitted indicating that the transaction was genuine and in accordance with law. However, it is the case of the petitioners that despite availability of the inquiry reports, the matter was dismissed by the Collector on 30.06.2021 for want of prosecution allegedly without proper service of notice. Thereafter, the case was restored in review and again remitted for inquiry, but eventually culminated in another dismissal on 21.05.2025 on the same ground of non- prosecution. The petitioners contend that they were unaware of the subsequent proceedings and came to know about the dismissal only in March, 2026 upon obtaining certified copies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioners had actively participated in the initial stages of the proceedings and all necessary inquiry reports were already available on record, which supported the case of the petitioners for grant of permission. It is further submitted that the dismissal of 5 the application for want of prosecution was effected without ensuring proper service of notice upon the petitioners. Even after restoration of the proceedings, the authorities acted mechanically and again dismissed the case on 21.05.2025 without affording any effective opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel argues that there was no requirement for repeated appearance of the petitioners once the inquiry reports had been submitted, and the authorities ought to have decided the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds. It is clarified that the petitioners are not pressing for adjudication on merits before this Court, but are seeking a limited relief that the matter be remitted back to the competent authority for fresh consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned orders and submits that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioners during the proceedings. It is contended that notices were issued on multiple occasions, however, the petitioners failed to appear and did not pursue their application diligently. It is further submitted that even after restoration of the case, the petitioners again remained absent during the inquiry proceedings, and therefore, the competent authority was justified in dismissing the application for want of prosecution. It is argued that the authorities have acted within the framework of law and no interference is warranted. 6 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the core issue involved in the present case is whether the petitioners were afforded an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing before dismissal of their application. 6. The record reflects that the petitioners had participated in the initial stages of the proceedings and that detailed inquiry reports were available on record. However, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution on two occasions. The contention of the petitioners that proper notice was not served and that they were unaware of the subsequent proceedings cannot be brushed aside, particularly when the matter pertains to valuable rights in immovable property. In such circumstances, and in order to subserve the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the petitioners to present their case before the competent authority. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the Collector is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned authority for fresh consideration. The authority shall hear the matter afresh and decide the application in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned authority on a date to be fixed by the authority, and their appearance shall be duly marked. The authority is further directed to decide the matter expeditiously. 7 8. It is made clear that in the event the petitioners fail to appear before the authority on the date fixed or on any subsequent date, the authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge