The High Court has reaffirmed that notice and opportunity of hearing must be provided to affected parties before review of orders under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. This follows earlier Division Bench precedents, ensuring violation of natural justice vitiates such review orders. The ruling serves as binding precedent for all subordinate revenue authorities in Chhattisgarh and clarifies procedural safeguards in land revenue cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5458/2025 of PRASANNA KUMAR DEOTA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010433772025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction for Chhattisgarh revenue matters |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior Division Bench judgments of Biharilal v. State of M.P. (2010) and Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue (2000) |
| Type of Law | Land Revenue / Administrative Law / Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether notice is mandatory to the party in whose favour the order was passed before exercising review under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Exercise of review under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code necessarily requires that notice be issued to the person in whose favour the order sought to be reviewed was passed. Absence of such notice violates principles of natural justice and renders the review order unsustainable. This view stands fortified by Division Bench precedents of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Biharilal v. State of M.P. and Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue. The impugned orders passed without notice and opportunity of hearing are set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after duly serving affected parties. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Biharilal v. State of M.P. & Ors., 2010 (2) MPHT 115 (DB); Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue & Anr., 2000 RN 76 (DB) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reliance on Division Bench decisions upholding the necessity of notice and opportunity when an order is sought to be reviewed, based on principles of natural justice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The SDO granted permission to review a prior order made in favour of the petitioner without issuing notice or affording opportunity of hearing. Review proceedings were then initiated and an order passed by the Tahsildar. The petitioner challenged this process solely on the ground of violation of natural justice due to absence of notice. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate revenue authorities and courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with similar land revenue or administrative review provisions |
| Follows | Biharilal v. State of M.P. (2010), Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue (2000) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that any review of orders under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code requires prior notice and hearing to the person in whose favour the original order was passed.
- Lack of notice is a sufficient ground to invalidate review proceedings, regardless of merits.
- Lawyers should verify that revenue authorities issue notices before reviewing orders—failure to do so can be directly challenged and will result in quashing of such orders.
- The judgment provides a clear checklist for compliance with natural justice in land revenue procedural matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court found that the Sub-Divisional Officer permitted a review of an earlier order favourable to the petitioner, and the review was conducted by the Tahsildar, without serving any notice or providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
- This omission constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice, as affected parties are entitled to be heard before alteration of orders in their favour.
- The court explicitly relied on Division Bench judgments—Biharilal v. State of M.P. and Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue—which mandate issuance of notice in such circumstances.
- The court set aside the review proceedings and resultant orders for want of notice, with liberty to authorities to proceed afresh after issuing proper notice and opportunity of hearing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The order granting permission for review and subsequent proceedings were conducted without notice or opportunity to the petitioner.
- Relied on a previous identical matter (WP(C) No.1422 of 2015) and Division Bench judgments holding notice to be mandatory under Section 51.
State
- Contended that the grounds for review were not valid, and that petitioner should not be granted relief only on technical grounds.
- Asserted that the authority acted in accordance with law and Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code.
Factual Background
The dispute arose when the Sub-Divisional Officer granted permission to the Tahsildar to review an earlier order which had been passed in favour of the petitioner, without issuing notice or giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Tahsildar then initiated and completed the review proceedings. The petitioner challenged the process solely on the ground that the entire exercise was done in violation of the principles of natural justice, notably due to the absence of notice and hearing.
Statutory Analysis
- The primary statutory provision considered was Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
- The court interpreted Section 51 to inherently require that the party in whose favour the impugned order was passed must be put to notice and heard before review proceedings may be validly carried out.
- The interpretation aligned with previous Division Bench authority and did not amount to reading down or expanding the provision but applied settled principles of natural justice.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms established law as interpreted in Division Bench decisions and does not break with prior precedent.