1 2026:CGHC:26566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 578 of 2023 1 - Daini Kumar S/o Shri Sahdev Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Amagsi, Tahsil - Lakhanpur, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Sahdev Ram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Amagsi, Tahsil - Lakhanpur, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Managemnet, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Through Its President/member, Head Office Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Surguja Division (Ambikapur), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Udaypur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Asha Gupta W/o Ramadhar Gupta Aged About 57 Years R/o Village - Lakhanpur, Tahsil - Lakhanpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.30 18:26:20 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.06.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed, as also that part of the order dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Commissioner, Surguja Division, affirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer setting aside the mutation in favour of respondent No.5, while further directing initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the lease granted in favour of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest on the ground of violation of Section 165(7)(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘the Code, 1959’). The petitioners has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued appropriate writ by setting- aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 2 and order / finding regarding cancellation of lease passed by respondent no. 3 dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P-2). 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other suitable 3 writ/orders/directions in favour of the petitioners looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners, namely Sahdev, along with his brothers, was granted lease of the Government land bearing Khasra No.968/31, area 0.906 hectare. It is alleged that one of the brothers, namely Sukhdev, fraudulently executed a sale deed dated 25.05.2012 in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of a portion of the leased land without the knowledge or consent of the petitioners' father and without obtaining prior permission of the Collector. On the basis of the said sale deed, mutation was carried out in favour of respondent No.5 by order dated 26.09.2013. The petitioners challenged the mutation before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who by order dated 11.10.2017 set aside the mutation holding that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 27 governing mutation proceedings had not been followed and that the transfer of leasehold land was without the permission contemplated under Section 165(7)(B) of the Code, 1959. The Commissioner affirmed the setting aside of the mutation but directed initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the lease, which direction has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue, giving rise to the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue have committed a manifest error in directing initiation of proceedings for cancellation 4 of the lease. It is submitted that the petitioners have consistently disputed the very execution and validity of the sale deed and have specifically pleaded that the alleged sale deed was obtained fraudulently without the knowledge of the petitioners' father. It is argued that once the petitioners do not admit the transfer, the authorities could not have proceeded on the assumption that there was a valid transfer attracting Section 165(7)(B) of the Code, 1959. It is further submitted that the mutation itself has already been set aside on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory procedure, which finding has attained finality. The petitioners have been residing upon and cultivating the leased land for several decades and, therefore, the direction for initiation of lease cancellation proceedings is wholly unwarranted and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 opposes the submissions and submits that the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have not cancelled the lease granted in favour of the petitioners' predecessor but have merely directed the competent authority to initiate proceedings for examining whether there has been violation of Section 165(7)(B) of the Code, 1959. It is submitted that the existence of a registered sale deed in respect of leasehold Government land without prior permission of the Collector prima facie warrants examination by the competent authority. The direction impugned is only for initiation of appropriate proceedings 5 in accordance with law and does not determine any civil rights of the petitioners. It is further submitted that adequate opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the petitioners in such proceedings and all questions including the validity of the alleged sale deed and the applicability of Section 165(7)(B) of the Code, 1959 would remain open for consideration by the competent authority. Therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the record, it is evident that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the mutation in favour of respondent No.5 on the ground that the mandatory procedure prescribed for mutation had not been followed. The said finding has been affirmed by the Commissioner. However, noticing that the transfer of a portion of the leased Government land was claimed to have been effected through a registered sale deed without prior permission of the Collector, the Commissioner directed initiation of appropriate proceedings for examining the issue of cancellation of lease under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The said direction has been affirmed by the learned Board of Revenue. 7. The direction issued by the Commissioner, as affirmed by the Board of Revenue, is only to initiate proceedings before the competent authority in accordance with law. No final adjudication 6 regarding cancellation of the lease has yet been made. The petitioners would have full opportunity to place all their objections before the competent authority, including their contention that the sale deed is fraudulent, that the transfer was never made by the original lessee, and that the provisions of Section 165(7)(B) of the Code, 1959 are not attracted to the facts of the case. All such questions involve disputed issues of fact which are required to be examined by the statutory authority in the proceedings contemplated by law. 8. At this stage, this Court does not find that the impugned direction suffers from any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders merely require the competent authority to undertake an enquiry in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Since no adverse determination affecting the petitioners' rights has yet been made by the competent authority in the contemplated proceedings, interference at this stage would be premature. 9. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, observed that if proceedings for cancellation of lease are initiated pursuant to the impugned orders, the competent authority shall decide the same independently, strictly in accordance with law 7 and on the basis of the material placed before it, without being influenced by any observation contained in the orders impugned herein, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all affected parties. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh