1 2026:CGHC:14662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1369 of 2020 1 - Dilip Singh S/o Chable Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Gariyabandh, Near Ram Mandir Tahsil/ District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Collector, District Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nagar Palika Parisad Through Chief Municipal Officer Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the order of additional Collector dated 06.05.2020) ANNEXURE P/6) and notice dated 10.06.2020 ANNEXURE P/7). In the interest of justice. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner has been in long and continuous possession of land bearing Khasra No. 904/09, admeasuring 22 square meters, situated at Gariyabandh, where he has been running a small business under the name “Sanjay Tent House” and has also been regularly paying taxes to the Nagar Palika, Gariyabandh. It is further submitted that the petitioner was granted a patta in respect of the said land by the competent authority in Case No. 05/A-66/2017–18 dated 10.08.2018. That with a view to earn his livelihood, the petitioner intended to raise construction for operating the said tent house 3 and, upon approaching the officials of the Nagar Palika Parishad for permission, was advised that since the area was very small, he could proceed with the construction even without formal permission. Acting on such advice, the petitioner commenced construction and laid the plinth, however, the Tahsildar, Gariyabandh, issued a notice alleging illegal construction, bearing No. 280/Tahasil/Reader/2018. Thereafter, another notice bearing No. 2307/Tahasil/Reader/2020 was issued by the Tahsildar calling upon the petitioner to submit an application in the prescribed format for settlement or allotment, failing which the alleged encroachment would be removed. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that the patta had already been granted by the Collector, Gariyabandh under the provisions of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and that the action of the Tahsildar in staying the construction was without jurisdiction, as the land falls within the Nagar Palika area and any action, if at all, could be taken only by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika. That subsequently, the Tahsildar referred the matter to the Additional Collector, before whom the petitioner duly appeared, however, the Additional Collector, purportedly exercising powers of review under Section 51(1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, illegally and arbitrarily cancelled the petitioner’s patta vide order dated 06.05.2020. Consequent thereto, the Tahsildar issued another notice dated 10.06.2020. The said order passed by the Additional Collector is illegal, perverse and contrary to the 4 provisions of law, and therefore deserves to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Collector has proceeded to review his own order dated 10.08.2018 in clear contravention of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 51 of the Code of 1959. It is contended that the exercise of review jurisdiction, being a statutory power, can only be undertaken strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law, which, in the present case, requires prior sanction or permission from the competent higher authority. However, the Additional Collector, without obtaining any such approval and acting unilaterally, has undertaken the review of the said order, which is impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Such an action, being dehors the statutory framework, vitiates the impugned order and renders the same liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that there has been a clear violation of the conditions stipulated in the grant of patta dated 10.08.2018, and therefore, the Additional Collector has rightly taken cognizance of such breach. It is contended that in light of the said violation, the Collector was well within his jurisdiction to review his own order to rectify the illegality and ensure compliance with the terms of the grant. Learned counsel further submits that the exercise of such power was justified, bona fide, and in accordance with law, and as such, the 5 impugned action does not suffer from any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Relevant provision under Section 51 of the Code of 1959 is extracted below for ready reference:- 51. Review of orders.- (1) The Board and every Revenue Office may, either in its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit; Provided that- (I) 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; (i-a) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to 6 appear and be heard in support of such order; (ii) no order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are pending be reviewed; (iii) no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within [60 days] from the passing of the order. (2) No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). 7. Under Section 51(1) (i) proviso, it is clearly mentioned that if an Officer subordinate to 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. In case of Biharilal V. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held while reiterating that sanction for review cannot be granted by sanctioning authority without affording opportunity of hearing to the other side and sanction order must show application of mind and it has been observed as under:- “12. It is further to be seen that a Division Bench of this 7 Court in the matter of Shaheed Anwar Vs. Board of Revenue and another, 2000 Revenue Nirnay 76, has observed that under Section 51 proviso 1 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 sanction for review by Board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without any notice to and hearing other side. A juxtapose reading of the judgment in the matters of Ravi Narayan and Shaheed Anwar (supra), would spell out that review for sanction cannot be granted without affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side and the review cannot be made mechanically. The scheme of Section 51 and the principles of natural justice if are taken up together they will make it clear that opportunity of hearing is to be granted to the other side so that it may convince the Sanctioning Authority that case on hands is not worth grant of sanction for review. He can also convince the authority that because of the lapse of time the authority should not now exercise the powers of review or granting sanction. The other side can well convince the authority that the case on hands is not such where absolute illegality has been committed and possibility of the other view would not justify grant of sanction for review.” 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and 8 further taking into account that while reviewing the earlier order, the Additional Collector has failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions of Section 51 of the Code of 1959, it is evident that the impugned action suffers from procedural illegality. The record reflects that the Additional Collector, without obtaining the requisite approval or sanction from the competent higher authority, proceeded to review his own order on the premise that such prior permission was not necessary in view of the alleged violation of the conditions of grant of patta. However, a plain reading of Section 51 of the Code of 1959 makes it abundantly clear that even in cases where there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the grant, the authority exercising the power of review is obligated to obtain prior sanction from the higher authority before undertaking such review. Thus, the failure to comply with the statutory mandate renders the exercise of review jurisdiction unsustainable in the eyes of law. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 06.05.2020 passed by the Additional Collector is hereby set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. 12. However, it is made clear that the concerned respondent authorities shall remain at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law by initiating proceedings for review of the 9 earlier order, provided that such exercise is undertaken strictly in compliance with the statutory requirements, including obtaining due sanction or approval from the competent higher authorities as mandated. It is further clarified that any such action must be carried out by following the prescribed procedure and ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice, so as to render the decision legally sustainable. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat