1 CGHC010312322023 2026:CGHC:29530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4167 of 2023 1 - Alimunddin S/o Gulamnabi Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Balrampur, Tahsil Balrampur Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - Vikesh Gupta S/o Dwarika Gupta, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Dahejwar, Tahsil - Balrampur Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - Vishal Gupta S/o Late Mathura Sao, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Bhedami, Tahsil Balrampur Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s) :- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 “10.1. That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 28.06.2023 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.2. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.2. 10.3. Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner has preferred this instant petition assailing the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the revision preferred by Respondent No. 6 against the order of the Collector dated 22.02.2023 has been allowed and the Collector's order has been set aside. The dispute pertains to land originally granted on patta in the year 1987 in favour of the father of Respondent No. 5. Subsequently, Respondent No. 6 purchased the said land by way of a registered sale deed dated 20.05.2019 without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector or the competent authority as mandatorily required under Section 165(7- B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. Taking note of the said statutory violation, the Collector declared the sale deed to be null and void by order dated 22.02.2023. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No. 6 preferred a revision, which came to be allowed 3 by the Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 28.06.2023, allegedly without considering the mandatory provisions of Section 165(7-B) of the Code, the material available on record, and the Commissioner's own earlier decision rendered on an identical issue. The review petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 24.08.2023 without due consideration of the grounds raised therein. It is further the case of the petitioner that even the Tahsildar, by order dated 18.08.2021, had rejected Respondent No. 6's application for mutation on the very same ground of non- compliance with the mandatory requirement of obtaining prior permission under Section 165(7-B) of the Code. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 28.06.2023 and 24.08.2023, which are alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal position, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the complainant, has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the mandatory provisions of Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code have been ignored. It is contended that the land in question, having been granted on lease/patta, could not have been transferred by way of sale without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector or the competent authority, as mandated under the aforesaid provision. Despite the admitted non-compliance of the statutory requirement, 4 the revisional authority set aside the order of the Collector declaring the sale deed to be null and void, without considering the material available on record and the settled legal position. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Having bestowed anxious consideration and upon a careful examination of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy essentially pertains to the State and Respondent No. 6 in relation to the validity of the transaction in question. The petitioner is merely the complainant and has failed to demonstrate the infringement of any legal or statutory right vested in him so as to maintain the present writ petition. It is well settled that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved whose legal or fundamental right has been violated. In the absence of any enforceable legal right or locus standi in favour of the petitioner, the present petition is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of locus standi. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena