1 CGHC010164322022 2026:CGHC:30388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2588 of 2022 1 - Ramhenpur Shiksha Prasar Samiti (Registration No. 977 Dated 18.12.1967), Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Nagar, Bhilai District Durg (Cg), Through Its Pradhan Mantri Shri Dinesh Pathak S/o Late Shri T.R. Pathak, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Q.No. 40 Gurunanak Nagar, Post - Supelad, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector/district Magistrate Durg, Collectorate Building Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub - Divisional Officer(Revenue) Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Nayab Tahsildar/sub Executive Magistrate Tahsil- Ahiwara, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Jaggu Satnami S/o Namalum Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Banbarad, Nandani Nagar, Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding of order sheet dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) drawn by the respondent no. 3; and may kindly be please to direct the respondent no. 4 to decide the application of the petitioner dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure P-5) on it's own merits, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondents, in the interest of Justice. 10.3 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tahsildar, Tahsil-Ahiwara, District Durg, seeking removal of the alleged encroachment made by certain private persons over a portion of the land lawfully held by the petitioner. Instead of adjudicating the said application in accordance with law, the Tahsildar referred the matter to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dhamdha, District Durg. It is submitted that, while dealing with the reference, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order cancelling the patta granted in favour of the petitioner. The SDO (Revenue) further observed that the land in question was required for construction of a Government building and directed that the said land be reserved in favour of the State Government, whereafter the matter was forwarded to the Collector for necessary action. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was originally granted the patta in the year 1979, and after expiry of the stipulated period of ten years, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant and the applicable provisions of law, the petitioner was conferred Bhumiswami rights over the said land. It is contended that once such rights had accrued in favour of the petitioner, the same could not have been annulled or interfered with without following the due process of law. It is further argued that the petitioner had 4 approached the Tahsildar only for redressal of his grievance regarding encroachment under Section 250 of the Code. Instead of deciding the said application on its own merits, the Tahsildar referred the matter to the SDO (Revenue), who travelled far beyond the scope of the proceedings and proceeded to cancel the petitioner's patta and Bhumiswami rights without issuing any notice or granting any opportunity of hearing. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in flagrant violation of the settled principles of natural justice. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner himself had invoked the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities by filing an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, and therefore, the Tahsildar was justified in referring the matter to the competent superior authority. It is further submitted that several complaints had been received against the petitioner regarding the land in question. However, learned State counsel fairly submits that no material is available on record to demonstrate that any notice was issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) or that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before passing the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that the patta granted in favour of the petitioner was itself not in 5 accordance with law and, therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had approached the Tahsildar by filing an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code seeking removal of the alleged encroachment said to have been made by respondent No. 5 over a portion of the petitioner's land. The scope of the proceedings before the Tahsildar was thus confined to adjudication of the question of encroachment. However, instead of deciding the application in accordance with law, the Tahsildar appears to have taken into consideration certain complaints allegedly submitted by some villagers and a Councillor and referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). The record further reveals that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), while acting on the said reference, proceeded to cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioner and also directed reservation of the land for Government purposes. Admittedly, before passing the impugned order, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of filing his objections or of being heard. Thus, valuable and accrued rights vested in the petitioner, including his Bhumiswami rights, have been adversely affected without adherence to the mandatory principles of due process and fair hearing. Even assuming that the authorities were of the view that the grant of patta or the 6 conferment of Bhumiswami rights required reconsideration or cancellation, they were legally bound to initiate appropriate proceedings by issuing notice to the petitioner, affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, considering his defence, and thereafter passing a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. Such mandatory procedure has admittedly not been followed in the present case. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from a patent violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem, and on this ground alone deserves to be set aside. 6. Apart from the aforesaid procedural infirmities, this Court also finds that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) appears to have exercised a jurisdiction which is not vested in him under the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. Insofar as cancellation of the patta and the consequential Bhumiswami rights are concerned, the competent authority is the Collector, who alone is empowered to examine such issues in accordance with law. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), therefore, exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is unsustainable both on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as well as violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the competent authority to initiate appropriate proceedings, if so 7 advised, strictly in accordance with law. In the event any dispute survives with regard to the land in question or the validity of the patta or the petitioner's Bhumiswami rights, the competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law after issuing due notice to all affected parties, affording them a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and thereafter passing a reasoned and speaking order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat