1 CGHC010359802026 2026:CGHC:40380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4711 of 2026 1 - Minoti Mandal S/o Late Shri Subhash Mandal Aged About 47 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District -Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tehaildar Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Registrar Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh 7 - Satish Kumar Pandey S/o Late Bholanath Pandey Aged About 50 Years R/o Fundurdihari Banaras Road, Tehsil Ambikapur, District -Surguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned order dated 08.09.2026 passed by Respondent No. 3 in Revenue Proceeding No. 133 A-21/2025-26 (202606020300055) for deciding the application filed by Petitioner under Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959; and/or, b. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing Respondent No. 3 to pass afresh order while deciding the application filed by Petitioner by taking into consideration the report(S) submitted by Respondent No. 4 and 5; and/or, c. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, being the lawful owner and in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 248/2, admeasuring 0.420 hectare, situated at Patwari Halka No. 17, R.I. Circle Ambikapur- 4, Tehsil Ambikapur, submitted an application before Respondent No. 3 – Collector, Surguja, under Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, seeking permission to sell the aforesaid land on account of certain contingencies and financial necessities, as specifically stated in the application. Upon receipt of the application, Respondent No. 5 initiated the proceedings and directed the concerned 3 Halka Patwari to conduct an enquiry and submit a detailed report on the relevant aspects. Pursuant thereto, a detailed enquiry report was submitted before Respondent No. 5 on 06.06.2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.01.2023, Respondent No. 5 considered the application and observed that permission for sale of the land could be granted, and accordingly forwarded the matter to Respondent No. 3 through Respondent No. 4 with a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on 23.02.2023, Respondent No. 4 also considered the petitioner's application and prepared a detailed note-sheet/order. It was observed therein that the requisite parameters and the provisions of Section 165(7-B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, had been duly considered and that no adverse fact had emerged from the enquiry report. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4 forwarded the proposal to Respondent No. 3 with a recommendation for granting permission to sell the land. As the petitioner's application remained pending before Respondent No. 3 without any decision, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2414/2026 seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the pending application. This Court, vide order dated 14.05.2026, directed Respondent No. 3 to decide the pending application, in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3, vide order dated 16.07.2026, rejected the petitioner's application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3944/2026. Vide order dated 29.07.2026, this Court directed Respondent No. 3 to reconsider and decide the petitioner's application afresh after duly taking into consideration the reports submitted by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. However, despite the aforesaid direction, Respondent No. 3, 4 instead of duly considering the existing reports, called for a fresh report from Respondent No. 4. Even in the fresh report, favourable observations were made in respect of the petitioner's claim. Nevertheless, Respondent No. 3 once again rejected the petitioner's application vide order dated 08.09.2026, on grounds which, according to the petitioner, are arbitrary and untenable. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 08.09.2026 passed by Respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, unreasoned and suffers from non-application of mind, as the material available on record, particularly the reports submitted by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, has not been duly considered. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the specific directions issued by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 3944/2026. Learned counsel submits that Respondent No. 3 has recorded findings beyond the material available on record and has failed to assign any cogent reason for disagreeing with the reports of the concerned revenue authorities. It is also submitted that the petitioner's application remained pending for nearly five years and, despite the intervention of this Court, has been rejected without proper consideration of the relevant material. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing of the impugned order and for appropriate directions to the respondents in accordance with law. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order dated 08.09.2026 has been passed by the competent authority after considering the 5 material available on record and in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available against the impugned order. Learned State Counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the impugned order as well as the reports submitted by the concerned Revenue Authorities, it appears that the Tehsildar, after due verification, has reported that the petitioner had taken loans for the marriage of her two daughters. Subsequently, one of her daughters, namely Pooja Mandal, became a widow and is residing with the petitioner along with her two minor sons. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is required to repay the loans as well as bear the expenses of her own livelihood and that of her widowed daughter and her minor grandchildren. 7. The aforesaid report was submitted by the concerned Tehsildar pursuant to the directions issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who, in turn, had directed an inquiry in compliance with the order passed by the Collector, Sarguja. The Tehsildar conducted the necessary inquiry and prepared a panchnama after recording the statements of the neighbouring villagers, so as to ascertain the actual financial condition and necessity of the petitioner. Thus, the report was submitted after due verification of the relevant facts. 8. It is further apparent from the record that on earlier occasions also, reports had been submitted by the concerned Revenue Authorities, including the SDO (Revenue) and the Tehsildar, pursuant to the 6 requisition of the Collector, and the same were in favour of the petitioner. However, the application seeking permission under Section 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was rejected by the Collector on the ground that granting such permission in the petitioner's case may result in similar claims being made by other Patta holders in future. 9. This Court, while considering the aforesaid orders, had specifically directed the Collector to reconsider the petitioner's application on the basis of the reports submitted by the concerned Revenue Authorities and to pass an appropriate order regarding permission to sell a portion of the land. It was also noticed that, even after the proposed sale, the petitioner would retain approximately 0.122 hectare of land. The order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3944 of 2026 dated 29.07.2026 was specific and dealt with the relevant aspects of the matter. 10. Despite the aforesaid direction, the application has again been rejected vide order dated 08.09.2026, principally on the ground that the petitioner had not produced documents relating to the expenses incurred in the marriage of her daughters and the loans allegedly taken by her. Such reasoning, however, does not appear to be consistent with the reports submitted by the concerned Revenue Authorities pursuant to the directions issued by the competent authorities. 11.The petitioner is a widow and after the marriage of her two daughters, had incurred loans for the marriage expenses. Subsequently, her daughter Pooja Mandal became a widow and returned to reside with the petitioner along with her two minor sons. The petitioner is, therefore, required to meet not only her own livelihood expenses and 7 discharge the liability arising out of the loans taken for the marriage of her daughters but also to support her widowed daughter and her minor grandchildren. 12. The record further indicates that the petitioner had submitted the requisite documents in the prescribed form. On the basis of the inquiry directed by the competent Revenue Authorities, the Tehsildar conducted verification and prepared a panchnama after recording the statements of the neighbouring villagers. The report thereafter submitted by him specifically records the financial necessity of the petitioner and her requirement of funds for repayment of the loan and sustenance of her family. 13. In such circumstances, once the competent Revenue Authorities, after conducting the requisite inquiry and verification, have recorded a finding regarding the petitioner's financial necessity, the same could not have been brushed aside on mere assumptions or on considerations extraneous to the requirements of Section 165(7-b) of the CGLRC. An administrative authority is required to consider the material available on record and record reasons which are germane to the statutory requirements. An order founded merely on apprehension or presumption, particularly when this Court has already issued specific directions for reconsideration, cannot be sustained. 14. The aforesaid legal position is also fortified by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Union of India and Anr., passed in Writ Petition No. 1180 of 2025, wherein, while dealing with the exercise of statutory and administrative 8 power and the scope of judicial review, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 44, observed as under:- “44.The rule of law constitutes the foundation of a well- governed society, and the shadow of bias or mala fides in the exercise of power concerning public functions strikes at the very root of a regulated social order. The law relating to mala fide exercise of power has been the subject matter of discussion in a catena of decisions of this Court [Pratap Singh V. State of Punjab, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 10]. It has been consistently held that where statutory or administrative power is exercised for purposes extraneous to those for which it is conferred, or is influenced by irrelevant considerations, or is actuated by malice in law, such exercise cannot be sustained. Judicial review in such circumstances is directed not merely at the decision but at the decision-making process itself.” 15. The aforesaid principle finds further support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hastimal Surana Vs. Union of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 3398 of 2025 and other connected matters, wherein, while considering the scope and effect of Section 165(7-B) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “………...as per Section 165(7-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. However, we find that there is no absolute bar under the said provision as it merely requires 9 permission be taken from a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Collector prior to any such alienation being made.” 16. It is also relevant that the petitioner has been pursuing her claim for several years and this is stated to be the third occasion on which she has been compelled to approach this Court against an order of the Collector rejecting her application. The repeated inquiries conducted by the Revenue Authorities have resulted in reports supporting the petitioner's stated necessity. The authority concerned was, therefore, required to consider the said reports in their proper perspective and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 17. The statutory authority cannot discharge its functions by passing an unreasoned order or by introducing considerations which are not germane to the statutory scheme. The discretion vested in the authority has to be exercised within the four corners of law and in accordance with the directions issued by this Court. In the present case, the Collector, Sarguja, has failed to adhere to the specific directions contained in the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3944 of 2026. 18. The importance of fairness, reasonableness and accountability in the exercise of statutory discretion by a public authority has also been emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. Chief Executive Officer and Others, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 461, wherein, in paragraph 69, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “69. To enthuse efficiency in administration, a balance between accountability and autonomy of action should be 10 carefully maintained. Overemphasis on either would impinge upon public efficiency. But undermining the accountability would give immunity or carte blanche power to act as it pleases with the public at whim or vagary. Whether the public authority acted bona fide would be gauged from the impugned action and attending circumstances. The authority should justify the action assailed on the touchstone of justness, fairness and reasonableness. Test of reasonableness is more strict. The public authorities should be duty conscious rather than power charged. Its actions and decisions which touch the common man have to be tested on the touchstone of fairness and justice. That which is not fair and just is unreasonable. And what is unreasonable is arbitrary. An arbitrary action is üttra vires. It does not become bona fide and in good faith merely because no personal gain or benefit to the person exercising discretion has been established. An action is mala fide if it is contrary to the purpose for which it was authorised to be exercised. Dishonesty in discharge of duty vitiates the action without anything more. An action is bad even without proof of motive of dishonesty, if the authority is found to have acted contrary to reason. (See Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corpn. [(1993) 2 SCC 279].” 19. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 08.09.2026 cannot be sustained. The Tehsildar, after conducting the requisite enquiry, including verification through panchnama and statements of neighbouring villagers, had recorded the petitioner’s financial necessity 11 and recommended grant of permission. The said report was also considered by the SDO, who found no adverse fact against the petitioner. 20. It is also evident from the record that this Court, vide order dated 29.07.2026, had specifically directed the Collector to reconsider the matter afresh after duly considering the reports submitted by the concerned revenue authorities. However, while passing the impugned order, the Collector has principally declined permission on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce documents regarding the loans and expenses incurred towards the marriages of her daughters, without assigning cogent reasons for discarding the reports of the Tehsildar and SDO. 21. The statutory discretion under Section 165(7-B) of the Code is required to be exercised upon consideration of relevant material and for reasons germane to the provision. The reports of the competent revenue authorities, based on factual verification of the petitioner’s circumstances, could not have been brushed aside merely on the basis of assumptions or without assigning reasons. 22. The aforesaid view is fortified by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj (supra), Hastimal Surana (supra) and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra) which emphasize that statutory discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably and upon relevant considerations. 23. In the facts of the present case, the impugned order reflects non- consideration of relevant material and absence of cogent reasons for 12 disagreeing with the reports submitted by the revenue authorities. The decision-making process, therefore, stands vitiated. 24. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.09.2026 passed by the Collector, Sarguja, is hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned Collector is directed to pass an appropriate order regarding permission to the petitioner to sell a portion of her land, in terms of her application under Section 165(7-b) of the CGLRC, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, keeping in view the reports submitted by the concerned Revenue Authorities and the observations made herein. 25. It is made clear that any further non-compliance with the specific directions issued by this Court shall be viewed seriously and may invite appropriate proceedings. 26. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi