Does the Authority Must Issue Notice Before Reviewing an Administrative Order Under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code? – Reaffirmation of Natural Justice Requirements

The High Court of Chhattisgarh holds that notice to the party in whose favour an order was passed is a mandatory requirement before review under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, reaffirming established precedent and following Division Bench decisions from the Madhya Pradesh High Court; this remains binding authority for subordinate courts and persuasive for writ petitions challenging administrative reviews in the revenue sector.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name WPC/5454/2025 of RAGHUWAR PRASAD PATWA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
CNR CGHC010433802025
Date of Registration 14-10-2025
Decision Date 15-10-2025
Disposal Nature DISPOSED OFF
Judgment Author HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA
Court High Court Of Chhattisgarh
Bench Single Judge
Precedent Value Binding authority within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere
Overrules / Affirms Affirms prior Division Bench decisions (Biharilal, Shaheed Anwar)
Type of Law Administrative/Revenue Law
Questions of Law Whether failure to issue notice to the party in whose favour an order was passed before reviewing that order violates principles of natural justice under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code
Ratio Decidendi

The exercise of review under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code necessarily requires notice to the party in whose favour the earlier order was passed; any review undertaken without such notice is contrary to principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law.

The court relied upon Division Bench judgments (Biharilal v. State of M.P. and Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue), following binding precedent. The impugned order was thus quashed for violation of audi alteram partem.

Judgments Relied Upon
  • Biharilal v. State of M.P. and others, 2010 (2) MPHT 115 (DB)
  • Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue and another, 2000 RN 76
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court Principles of natural justice; precedence from Division Benches; requirement of hearing before adversely affecting a party’s rights
Facts as Summarised by the Court The SDO permitted the Tahsildar to review an earlier order which was in the petitioner’s favour, without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this omission as a violation of natural justice.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts and revenue authorities in Chhattisgarh
Persuasive For Other High Courts, especially for writ petitions involving revenue orders
Follows
  • Biharilal v. State of M.P. (2010 (2) MPHT 115 DB)
  • Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue (2000 RN 76)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Reaffirms that principles of natural justice, specifically the right to notice and hearing, are mandatory before reviewing orders under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
  • Relies directly on Division Bench precedent, strengthening binding precedent within the state.
  • Lawyers challenging review proceedings or representing authorities must ensure notice is issued to parties benefitted by original orders.
  • Orders passed on review without such notice are vulnerable to being set aside on writ grounds—no technical ground or merits can cure this defect.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  • The petitioner’s core grievance was the absence of notice prior to review of an order in his favour by the revenue authorities.
  • The court noted that the issue was already settled by Division Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Biharilal and Shaheed Anwar), which held that Section 51 review invariably requires notice to the affected party.
  • The court reaffirmed that omission of notice violates natural justice; the right to be heard is fundamental when an adverse order is contemplated.
  • Reliance was placed solely on established precedent; no new law was made.
  • The court, accordingly, quashed the impugned orders but permitted fresh proceedings after proper notice to all concerned parties.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

  • Order granting review permission by the SDO and subsequent review proceedings by the Tahsildar were done without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
  • Relied on Division Bench decisions establishing notice as mandatory before review under Section 51.

State

  • Contended that grounds for review were not valid and no relief should be granted merely on technical grounds.
  • Asserted the authority’s order complied with Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code.

Factual Background

The dispute arose when the Sub-Divisional Officer permitted the Tahsildar to review a previous order that had been passed in the petitioner’s favour, without issuing notice or hearing the petitioner. The subsequent review order was also issued without such opportunity. The petitioner challenged this procedural lapse as violative of natural justice.

Statutory Analysis

  • The judgment interprets Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
  • Emphasizes that any exercise of review power under Section 51, when it may adversely affect a party, mandates compliance with principles of natural justice, i.e., notice and opportunity of hearing.
  • Interpretation follows Division Bench authority, reading the procedural safeguard of notice into the statutory scheme.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – The ruling strictly follows established Division Bench precedents and does not break new ground.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.