1 2026:CGHC:27317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1073 of 2021 Fatteram Sahu S/o Hetram Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Beltikari, Tahsil Bilaigarh , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhavan , Mantralaya , Atal Nagar , Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Heeramati Wd/o Late Mangturam Sahu R/o Village Beltikari, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU Order on Board 02.07.2026 2 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs; “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to this case. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set-aside the orders dated 17.07.2017, Commissioner Order dated 03.07.2019 and Secretary Order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure-P/1 colly), in the interest of justice.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted Patta of ownership right (bhumiswami right) considering that the petitioner was in possession of the land since long. He contended that the Patta was granted by the concerned Tahsildar in the year 1987 pursuant to the order passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur, however, the Additional Collector vide order dated 17.07.2017 has cancelled the Patta for the reasons assigned therein. He contended that the action of cancelling the Patta is taken based on some complaint made by private person and the recommendation of the Tahsildar. Collector being a revenue officer, if he wants to review its own order of grant of Patta and to pass fresh order cancelling the earlier order of grant of Patta then in accordance with the provisions under Section 51 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 prior permission from the higher authorities has to be obtained, which is a mandatory provision, in absence of taking permission to review its own order by the Additional Collector, the order dated 17.07.2017 is not sustainable and it is to be struck down. Consequently, the petitioner, thereafter have challenged the order of the Collector before the Commissioner Raipur, Division Raipur, as also before the State Government, which came to be dismissed and therefore, when once the first order itself is bad in law, the other orders 3 rejecting the appeal / revision submitted by the petitioner is also to be set aside. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the order passed in WPC No. 1369 of 2020 (Dilip Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh) dated 27.03.2026 and WPC No 526 of 2022 (Uma Devi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh) dated 27.09.2024. 3. Counsel for the respondent-State would oppose the submission and submits that the order has been passed cancelling the Patta following due process of law, in accordance with law. Hence, it does not call for any interference. 4. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would also vehemently oppose the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the ground which is raised in this writ petition and in submission of counsel for the petitioner that the prior permission as provided under Section 51 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 has not been obtained by the Collector prior to review its own order is not sustainable. He contended that the collector has not exercised the powers of grant of Patta under the Land Revenue Code, but the Patta was granted in exercise of the powers under the revenue book circular. In support of his contention, he referred to the document filed along with the writ petition Annexure-P/5 and would submit that from the Patta itself if it clear that the Patta was granted under Revenue Book Circular Part IV-3. He also contended that the powers which has been exercised by the Collector at the time of passing an order to grant Patta to the petitioner was purely an administrative order and not an order under the Land Revenue Code and therefore, the provision under Section 51 would not be applicable in the facts of the case. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of High Court of 4 Madhya Pradesh in case of Ajeet Kumar v. State of M.P. & Ors, M.P. No. 63 of 1997, decided on 20.11.1997. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The impugned order Annexure-P/1 dated 19.01.2021 passed by State of Chhattisgarh is arising out of a proceeding initiated by the Additional Collector, based on the report of Naib Tahsildar dated 10.01.2017. The Patta was initially granted to the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Additional Collector under Revenue Book Circular Part-IV- 3 Para 24. This order of grant of Patta is sought to be reviewed by the Additional Collector by whose order the Patta was granted. 7. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have committed an error in not considering the fact that before exercising the powers of the review and cancelling the order granting Patta, prior permission of the higher authority was not obtained as provided under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 8. The order granting Patta is not in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Code of 1959, but the order has been passed by the Collector in exercise of its administrative powers under the revenue book circular. 9. The revenue book circular is not a law promulgated by the legislature, but is a compilation of the executive orders/ instructions. The coordinate bench of this Court in case of Government of Madhya Pradesh (presently Government of Chhattisgarh) and Others vs. Ishar Chandra, SA No. 72 of 2005, dated 23.09.2016 has considered the issue with regard to the character of the revenue book circular and observed thus: 5 “33. It is well settled law that the Revenue Book Circular is a compilation of executive orders and not law, these are the guidelines per se do not partake of the character of statute, such guidelines in absence of the statutory backdrop are advisory in nature and they per se do not confer any legal right. (See State of U.P. v. Rakesh Kumar Keshari (2011 5 SCC 341) and Poonam Verma v. DDA (2007 13 SCC 154). The M.P. High Court in the matter of Ramcharan and others v. State of M.P. and others (1997 RN 141) has held that Revenue Book Circulars have not been framed under the authority of any statute. 34. In the matter of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) and others v. Director General of Civil Aviation and others (2011 5 SCC 435) it has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that an executive order is to be issued keeping in view the rules and executive business, though the executive order may not have the force of law but it is issued to provide guidelines to all concerned, and it has further been held in paragraph 22 as under: - “22. Thus, it is evident from the above that executive instructions which are issued for guidance and to implement the scheme of the Act and do not have the force of law, can be issued by the competent authority and altered, replaced and substituted at any time. The law merely prohibits the issuance of a direction, which is not in consonance with the Act or the statutory rules applicable thereunder.”” 10. Application of Section 51 of the Code of 1959, where the authorities has exercised or exercising the powers under the Revenue Book Circular has been considered by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Ajit Kumar (supra) and observed thus in Para 8; “8. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------. The Revenue Book Circulars are purely executive instructions and infraction thereof cannot give rise to any right for claiming writ or direction. The Revenue Authorities while acting in exercise of Revenue Book Circular are purely discharging administrative functions and unless there is any violation of any constitutional or legal provisioon, this Court would not normally come to the aid of the 6 party complaining. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner is only one of the claimants for the allotment on the alleged ground of his poverty. The objector claimed the land on the ground of user of the land. Both the parties cannot claim any priority over each other in the matter of allotment. The Commissioner examined all the facts and took trouble to visit the plot to see its location and possession of the parties. He has, thereafter, taken the decision to review his earlier order, and being the higher authority, directed disposal of the land only by auction if such a course is found necessary by the Collector. The Commissioner and the State Government have rightly opined that while exercising powers under Revenue Book Circular, it was not necessary to obtain any permission for review of the order under Sec. 51 (1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.” 11. In the case at hand also, it is a case where the Collector / Additional Collector has granted Patta under the Revenue Book Circular and based on complaint and the report obtained from Naib Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer, the order granting Patta was reviewed and the Patta granted to the petitioner has been cancelled for the reasons assigned therein, holding that the petitioner was not eligible for getting the land on Patta as he was a government employee. 12. In view of aforementioned discussion when Collector has not exercised powers for grant of Patta under the Land Revenue Code, then in view of the discussions made above for reviewing of its earlier order and correcting the mistake, Collector is not required to follow the procedure as provided under Section 51 of the Code of 1959. The said submission made by counsel for the petitioner in view of the aforementioned discussion is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 13. Counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission on the merits of the case and when specific query is put to counsel for the petitioner 7 about his any submission on merits of the case, he has not made any submission on merits but stated that it was the only ground which he had already argued. The decision relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in case of Dileep Singh (supra) and Uma Devi (supra) are distinguishable on facts as in that case, no argument is raised by any of the counsel representing the parties as to under which provision of law, the Patta subject matter of the proceedings was granted, but the only consideration is in exercise of the powers of review by the Collector. In case of Uma Devi (supra), the order subject matter which is sought to be reviewed is arising out of the mutation proceedings which was under the C.G.. Land Revenue Code and therefore, the case relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. Provisions of the Land Revenue Code can be made applicable only when the initial order was passed or proceedings was initiated under the provisions of the Code of 1959. 14. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, accordingly, it is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh