1 CGHC010290822026 2026:CGHC:32499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3932 of 2026 1 - Smt. Bharti Sinha W/o Shri Nirmal Sinha Aged About 38 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Puri, Ward No. 08, Tahsil Charama, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 2 - Tomeshwar Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Ganga Ram Sinha Aged About 33 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Puri, Ward No. 08, Bazarpara, Tahsil Charama, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - Kunal Singh Thakur S/o Shri Sadhu Ram Thakur Aged About 27 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Puri, Ward No. 03, Tahsil Charama, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1-The Collector Kanker, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 2 - Nayab Tahsildar Charama, District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/07/2026 RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.07.30 18:21:45 +0530 2 1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 in revenue case No. 20261142200006/B-121/2025-2026, by which canceled Land Record Booklet, issued in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the concerned Nayab Tahsildar, Charama, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), by a preliminary order dated 21.01.2026, cancelled the Rin Pustika issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 in respect of Khasra No. 703/4, admeasuring 1.400 hectares; petitioner No. 2 in respect of Khasra No. 703/1, admeasuring 1.600 hectares; and petitioner No. 3 in respect of Khasra Nos. 662/1 and 703/1, admeasuring 0.180 hectare and 1.200 hectares, respectively, all situated at Village Puri, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), without affording the petitioners any opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that no notice were issued to the petitioners, nor was any opportunity of hearing granted before passing the said order. The learned counsel contends that the impugned preliminary order dated 21.01.2026 has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and without following the due procedure prescribed under 3 law. Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashment of the preliminary order dated 21.01.2026. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the order dated 21.01.2026 is only a preliminary order and that the final order in the matter is yet to be passed. 4. Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that even a preliminary order, if it adversely affects the rights of a party, is required to be preceded by due compliance with the procedure prescribed under law and the principles of natural justice. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were neither served with any notice nor were afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the impugned preliminary order dated 21.01.2026 came to be passed. Accordingly, the impugned preliminary order dated 21.01.2026 is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. Before passing any order cancelling the Rin Pustika issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 in respect of Khasra No. 703/4, admeasuring 1.400 hectares; petitioner No. 2 in respect of Khasra No. 703/1, admeasuring 1.600 hectares; and petitioner No. 3 in respect of Khasra Nos. 662/1 and 703/1, admeasuring 0.180 4 hectare and 1.200 hectares, respectively, all situated at Village Puri, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), the respondent authorities shall issue due notice to the petitioners, afford them a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and thereafter pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and has interfered with the impugned order solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities are directed to conclude the proceedings and pass an appropriate order, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju