1 CGHC010325652021 2026:CGHC:42404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5248 of 2021 1 - Kartik Ram Yadav (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 15-04-2026 1.1 - (A) Mrigesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Kartik Ram Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Jhagarha, Post Risdi, Tehsil Korba, Police Station Kotwali Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Samant Yadav S/o Late Manish Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jhagarha, Post Risdi, Tehsil Korba, Police Station Kotwali Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 1.3 - (C) Prashant Yadav S/o Late Manish Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Jhagarha, Post Risdi, Tehsil Korba, Police Station Kotwali Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 2 - Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ( Cause title taken from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 16.07.2021, passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) whereby the permission under Section 51 of Land Revenue Code has been granted and the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Tehsildar whereby the order dated 08.03.2019 has been reviewed and the earlier order has been set-aside. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) may kindly be directed to pass a fresh order after issuance of the notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the 3 fact that whether the suo moto power of review can be exercised after 2 years. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order dated 08.11.2021, passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), in Revenue Case no. 202108050100019/A- 6/2020-21. 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the Tehsildar, Korba, passed an order dated 08.03.2019 on an application filed by the petitioner seeking correction of the revenue records, whereby it was held that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question bearing Khasra No.349, admeasuring 0.07 hectare, Khasra No.362, admeasuring 0.172 hectare, and Khasra No.447/1, admeasuring 0.120 hectare, total admeasuring 0.362 hectare and the revenue records were accordingly corrected in favour of the petitioner. The said order was never challenged before any Court of law. Thereafter, on 16.07.2021, the concerned Tehsildar, Korba, filed an application seeking review of the order dated 08.03.2019, stating that upon physical verification, it was found that the land in question belonged to the State. On the same day, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) granted permission to review the said order. Thereafter, on 19.07.2021, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even without issuing notice to petitioner the revenue 4 records were again corrected in the name of the State. It is submitted that the entire review proceeding was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and, therefore, the Tehsildar as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) committed an illegality in passing the said orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Biharilal v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2010 (2) MPHT 115, wherein it has been held that sanction for review cannot be granted without affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned party. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the order has been passed by the competent authority within its jurisdiction and, therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that an order dated 08.03.2019 was passed by the concerned Tehsildar in favour of the petitioner, whereby the revenue records in respect of the land in question were corrected in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, after a lapse of more than two years, an application seeking permission to review the said order was filed by the concerned Tehsildar before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 16.07.2021. On the same day, permission to review the order was granted by the concerned SDO (Revenue), and thereafter, on 19.07.2021, the order dated 08.03.2019 was reviewed and the revenue 5 records were corrected in the name of the State, without issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing. 7. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has dealt with a similar issue in the matter of Biharilal Vs. State of M.P. and three others, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine MP 239 and has held in paras 10 to 13 as under: 10. Section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code deals with review of orders. It reads as under: "51: Review of orders (1). The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit: Provided that - (i). If the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to a Collector of Settlement officer proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate; (i-a). No order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order; (ii). No order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so lonmg as such appeal or proceedings are pending be reviewed; (iii). No order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be review except on the application of a party to the proceedings, and no application for the 6 review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order. (2). No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (3). For the purposes of this Section the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue Officer who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom there is no successor in the district. (4). An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on revision shall not be reviewed by an Revenue Officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority. 11. When the power of review are to be exercised the authority competent to grant sanction for review has not simply to pass an order that petition for grant of sanction is allowed he has to apply mind to the facts of the case. In the matter of Ravi Narayan v. State of M.P. 2000 Revenue Nirnay 161 one of us sitting single has made the following observations: "19. The scheme of section 51 of the Code is that in case the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer wants to review an order passed by him he can do it without seeking any sanction from the Board but if he/they want to review an order passed by any predecessor sanction of the Board is a condition precedent. But in case of any officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer whether he has passed the order himself or wants to review an order passed by his predecessor, he is bound to seek written sanction from the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate. 7 20. The opening word of section 50 and 51 of the Code would clearly provide that the powers of revision and review can be exercised by the authority on his own motion or on an application by the aggrieved party. What should be the period of limitation for exercising suo motu revisional powers has been considered in number of cases while considering the revisional powers. 21. A power of Review is vested in the Court so that the said Court can correct the wrong which has been committed by it. It may be a case where the same Court/authority after learning about the wrong committed by it wants to correct the wrong. It can exercise the powers either on an application or suo motu. In case of a revision the superior Court invested with powers of revision wants to correct the wrong committed by his subordinate. The superior Court may exercise these powers suo motu or on an application by the aggrieved party. The powers in fact are such which can be exercised by the same Court or by the revisional Court because each of the Court wants to correct the wrong. In case of review the anxiety is of the same Court while in the case of revision the anxiety is of the superior Court. While granting permission for review the authority is not required to give a mechanical sanction. The order must show application of mind. It must appear from the order that the authority was not swayed away but the order must show that it is has considered the facts and after application of the mind has granted the permission. In the present case, when the papers were placed before the 8 Collector seeking sanction for review, the Collector simply said 'agreed with the recommendations' in the opinion of this Court such observation shows absolute and utter non- application of mind. If would not be proper for an authority to say that agreeing with the recommendations, he was granting permission for review. The order passed by the Collector is not in accordance with law. True it is that no form is prescribed for granting the sanction nor particular words are to be used for granting sanction but such an order, granting sanction, would not meet any requirement of law." 12. It is further to be seen that a division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue 2000 Revenue Nirnay 76 has observed that under Section 51 proviso 1 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 sanction for review by Board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without any notice to and hearing other side A juxtapose reading of the judgment in the matter of Ravi Narayan and Shaheed Anwar would spell out that review for sanction cannot be granted without affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side and the review cannot be made mechanically. The scheme of Section 51 and the principles of natural justice if are taken up together they will make it clear that opportunity of hearing is to be granted to the other side so that it may convince the sanctioning authority that case on hands is not worth grant of sanction for review. He can also convince the authority that because of the lapse of time the authority should not now exercise the powers of review or granting the sanction. The other side can well convince the authority that the case on hands is not such where absolute 9 illegality has been committed and possibility of the other view would not justify grant of sanction for review. 13. Undisputedly in the present matter neither the principle laid down in Ravi Narayan (supra) or the principle laid down Shaheed Anwar (supra) were observed. The sanction for review granted by the Commissioner, Bhopal was patently illegal and if that was so the ceiling authority was not entitled to proceed further with the review.” 8. In such circumstances, the review proceedings having been conducted without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. Accordingly, the entire proceeding initiated by the concerned revenue authorities, including the order passed in review, is hereby set aside. However, the concerned authorities shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after issuing due notice to the petitioner and affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ruchi