1 2026:CGHC:15590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4344 of 2022  Ramanuj Sidar S/o Shri Ratiram Sidar, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Khirka, Post Rapagula, Thana Sarangarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner Land Records Raipur, Thana Goal Bazar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Land Records Raipur, Thana Coal Bazar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector, Raigarh Thana Chakradhar Nagar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, Police Station Sarangarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Banjare, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.04 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 11.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Collector respondent and further direction to respondent authorities to re-consider case of petitioner and to decide second appeal, within SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.09 14:21:59 +0530 2 stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Patwari and at the relevant time, he was posted at Patwari Circle No. 49, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.07.2004. An article of charge was issued alleging that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from service; he failed to deposit amount collected from farmers as arrears of land revenue and also failed to disburse the amount to flood affected families. The petitioner filed reply to article of charge. The disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer and presenting officer and the petitioner participated in the enquiry, and thereafter, enquiry report was submitted wherein the allegations were found proved. The disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of removal from services vide order dated 22.02.2006 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner preferred review petition against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) dated 22.02.2006, when no decision was taken he filed WPS No. 953 of 2013, wherein, direction was issued to the Commissioner, Land Records, Raipur to decide the review petition within a period of three months. As informed by Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi that the said review petition was dismissed and thereafter, the Collector vide order dated 11.09.2013 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.09.2013 by filing instant appeal. 3. Mr. R.K. Banjare would submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the order of removal was passed contrary to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, 3 Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. He would further contend that in WPS No. 953 of 2013, a direction was issued to the Commissioner Land Records, Raipur to decide the review petition within a period of three months and no direction was issued to the Collector to decide appeal, therefore, order passed by the Collector dated 11.09.2013 is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would contend that the review petition preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner was dismissed, and thereafter, appeal was preferred before the Collector and same has been dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2013. He would submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the authorities and sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the return, State failed to place on record rejection order of review petition. Perusal of Annexure P/1 dated 11.09.2013 would reveal that the Collector entertained an appeal and passed the order pursuant to direction issued in WPS No. 953 of 2013 and this fact is evident from first para of the order impugned. 7. It is nowhere stated in the order impugned that the authority concerned entertained and decided a review petition preferred by the petitioner. As there was no direction to the Collector to decide appeal and the said authority took shelter of the order passed in WPS No. 953 of 2013 and decided the appeal, therefore, the order Annexure P/1 is bad in law. The authority concerned has exceed its jurisdiction as there was no direction to the Collector to decide the 4 appeal. Thus, the order dated 11.09.2013(Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector is hereby quashed. The Commissioner Land Records, Raipur is directed to decide review petition pursuant to order passed in WPS No. 953 of 2013. If review petition has already been decided, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available under the law. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant