1 2026:CGHC:18488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3014 of 2020 Shukla Chadar Centre Through Its Owner Shri Tarkeshwar Shukla S/o Shri Taradin Shukla Aged About 48 Years, R/o Power House Road, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Estate Officer, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Korba (East), District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Shukla, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Veena Nair, Adv. WPC No. 3272 of 2020 Rock Bottan Mens Wear Through Its Porprietor Sohail Ahmad, S/o Ansar Ahmad, Aged About 28 Years. Sharda Vihar Fatak, Power House Road, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.04.27 18:15:49 +0530 2 2 - Chhattisgarh State Poser Generation Company Limited Korba (East), Through Its Managing Director, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 and 3 : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. K.R. Nair and Ms. Veena Nair, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 22-4-2026 1. Since both the above writ petitions arise out of the same order passed in same revenue case, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17-11-2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Distt. Korba in respect of the application filed by the respondent/ Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (henceforth referred to as ‘CSPGCL’) under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam of 1974’), though the impugned order is pertaining to the objection application filed by the petitioners raising various grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, revenue case No. 202010050100011/B-121 has been registered on account of application filed by the respondent/ CSPGCL under the provisions of 3 the Adhiniyam of 1974. They further submit that as per Section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1974, the officer who can take cognizance under the Adhiniyam of 1974 should not be below the rank of Assistant Collector/Deputy Collector as competent authority, that too, such authorization ought to have been notified by the State Government in official gazette, but aforesaid proceedings were being carried out by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba Distt. Korba, who is not a competent authority, therefore, learned counsel submit that, on this sole ground, the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 17-11-2020 as well as aforesaid revenue proceedings be quashed. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents would jointly submit that, though the State Government has not issued notification authorizing the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Distt. Korba as a competent authority under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1974, but vide amendment dated 9th June, 2025, which has been published in official gazette on the aforesaid date, Section 3 has been amended to the effect that, Collector may also appoint competent authority by its general order. Learned counsel for the respondent also produced aforesaid gazette notification, whereby in Section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1974, after the words “Official Gazette” and before the symbol “–”, words “or Collector by general order” have been inserted. Meaning thereby, after aforesaid amendment and gazette notification dated 9th June, 2025, the Collector may also authorize competent authority under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1974 by its order. However, learned counsel conceded that, when application under the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1974 was filed against the petitioners, by that time, the Collector had no power to authorize any officer as contemplated in 4 Section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1974. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Undisputedly, aforesaid revenue case No. 202010050100011/B-121 has been initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Distt. Korba on 21-9-2020 in respect of an application filed by the respondent/ CSPGCL under the Adhiniyam of 1974. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1974 reads thus :- “3. Appointment of competent authority. -The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) appoint such person being an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector as competent authority for the purposes of this Act; and (b) define the local limits within which, or the categories of public premises in respect of which, the competent authority shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on competent authority by or under this Act.” 7. Perusal of aforesaid provision shows that, competent authority may be appointed by the State Government by notification published in Official Gazette. Who can be the authority has also been provided in sub- section (a) of Section 3. Respondents have not filed any document to demonstrate the fact that, while initiating aforesaid revenue case, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Distt. Korba was appointed as competent authority by the State Government under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1974, rather, vide gazette notification dated 9th June, 5 2025, the State Government has amended Section 3, whereby the Collector has also been authorized to appoint competent authority under Section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1974 by inserting the words “or Collector by a general order” in Section 3 after the words ‘Official Gazette”. Thus, when aforesaid revenue case was registered by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Distt. Korba in the month of September, 2020, by that time, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Distt. Korba was not a competent authority, therefore, without entering into any other merit of the case, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 17-11-2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Distt. Korba in Revenue Case No. 202010050100011/B-121 is quashed, as well as proceeding initiated by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, Distt. Korba registered on the application filed by the CSPGCL being Revenue case No. 202010050100011/B-121 pending before it, is also quashed as, it was not a competent authority. However, liberty is left with the respondent/CSPGCL to file fresh application under the Adhiniyam of 1974 before the competent authority raising all its grounds for redressal of its grievance. 8. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. 9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge pathak