1 2026:CGHC:18339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1885 of 2026 1 - Girdhari Behera S/o Damarudhar Behera Aged About 66 Years Caste Gond (Scheduled Tribe) R/o Village Deriki, Naugaon, District- Jagatsinghpur (Odisha) 2 - Shyam Sundar Agrawal S/o Late Sita Ram Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 604, Tower-B Metro Hights Telibandha Raipur District C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Chhattisgarh Revenue And Disaster Management Department S-041, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Simga District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Simga District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Managing Director Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd. 37 Hargovind Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi 110092 6 - Chief Executive Officer Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd. Village Ringani, Tehsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 493113 ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioners from the office of respondents including private respondents by issuing a writ of certiorari for kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court be pleased, to order the R/2 to grant permission to the petitioner No. 1 to sell his lands situated at Village Kesda Tehsil Simga Khasara No. 48 & 73 total area H. acres after giving opportunity to both the petitioners within the time frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and further to report this Hon'ble Court to report the proceedings of the sanction after the completion of the proceedings before the said court in this regard by restoring previous Case No. 202008210100001/38 2019-2020 and, 10.3 Further be pleased to setup an inquiry committee to report this Hon'ble Court that how and in what manner the lands of the petitioner No. 1 situated at Village Kesda Tehsil Simga Khasara No. 48 & 73 total area 1.730 H. have been surrounded by the private 3 respondents without following the procedure of land aquisition as contained in "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013", without the knowledge, consent and information of the petitioner No.1. 10.4 Cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner against the respondents. 10.5 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the petition, are that the petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the manner in which proceedings initiated for grant of permission to sell land under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 have been dealt with by the revenue authorities. The seller, belonging to the Gond community, a Scheduled Tribe, entered into an agreement to sell his lands bearing Khasra Nos. 73 and 48, admeasuring total area 1.730 hectares, situated at village Kesda, Tehsil Simga. In furtherance of the agreement, an application seeking permission to sell the land was submitted before the Collector, which was registered and processed through various stages, including inquiry by the Tehsildar and consideration by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is the case of the petitioners that despite participation in earlier proceedings and submission of requisite documents, the matter was ultimately 4 dismissed by the Collector on 30.06.2021 for want of prosecution, allegedly without proper service of notice. Subsequently, the matter was restored in review and again remitted for inquiry; however, the proceedings culminated in a second dismissal on 21.05.2025, again on the ground of non-prosecution. The petitioners contend that they were unaware of the proceedings and came to know about the dismissal only in March, 2026 upon obtaining certified copies of the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are wholly arbitrary and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that although the proceedings for grant of permission to sell the land were initiated as far back as the year 2020 and the petitioners had actively participated in the inquiry proceedings before the Tehsildar, the application was subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution without ensuring proper service of notice upon the petitioners. It is further submitted that even after restoration of the case in review, the authorities again proceeded in a mechanical manner and dismissed the application on 21.05.2025 without affording any effective opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel argues that the petitioners were never duly informed about the subsequent dates of hearing and, therefore, their non-appearance cannot be construed as lack of interest in the matter. It is emphasized that the orders have been passed 5 without adjudicating the matter on merits, despite availability of inquiry reports and relevant materials on record. Learned counsel clarifies that the petitioners are presently not pressing for a decision on merits of the permission application before this Court, but seek a limited relief that they be granted a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing before the competent authority. It is thus prayed that the matter be remitted back to the concerned authority with a direction to decide the application afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and supports the impugned orders. It is submitted that the application for grant of permission to sell the land was processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law and sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioners to appear and pursue their case. It is contended that the record clearly demonstrates that the matter was listed on multiple occasions before the competent authorities, and notices were issued to the parties. However, despite such opportunities, the petitioners failed to appear and did not show due diligence in prosecuting their application. Consequently, the competent authority had no option but to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. Learned State counsel further submits that even after restoration of the matter, the petitioners again remained absent during the proceedings, which clearly indicates lack of 6 bona fide interest on their part. It is argued that the authorities have acted within their jurisdiction and in accordance with law, and no procedural irregularity or illegality can be attributed to the impugned orders. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present case lies in a narrow compass. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is essentially that their application seeking permission to sell the land has been dismissed for want of prosecution without affording them an adequate opportunity of hearing. On the other hand, the State has justified the impugned action on the ground of repeated non-appearance on the part of the petitioners. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, be that as it may, it appears that the petitioners have not been effectively heard by the concerned authority before passing the impugned orders. In such circumstances, in order to subserve the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the petitioners to present their case before the competent authority. 8. Accordingly while setting aside the order dated 21.5.2025 passed by the Collector, the matter is remitted back to the concerned 7 authority for fresh consideration. The authority shall hear the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned authority on 11th May, 2026, and the concerned authority is directed to mark their appearance on the said date and, if possible, decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. 9. It is made clear that if, even for once, the petitioners fail to appear before the concerned authority on the date fixed or any subsequent date, the concerned authority shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge