The High Court reaffirms that review of administrative orders under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code requires mandatory issuance of notice and proper hearing to the affected party. This judgment follows binding Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench authority and is a binding precedent for all subordinate land revenue authorities in Chhattisgarh, impacting all land revenue review actions.
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 | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts/authorities under Chhattisgarh jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Revenue / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether review of administrative orders under Section 51, Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the affected party |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The exercise of review under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code, where the original order was in favour of a particular person, necessarily requires prior notice and proper opportunity of hearing to that person. Failure to provide such notice and hearing constitutes violation of principles of natural justice. Existing Division Bench precedents from Madhya Pradesh High Court, which have been followed previously by the Chhattisgarh High Court, were reaffirmed. The impugned orders passed without affording such opportunity were thus set aside, though fresh proceedings were permitted with due observance of the natural justice requirement. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
SDO granted Tahsildar permission to review an earlier order passed in favour of Petitioner, without issuing notice or providing hearing to him. Petitioner challenged the order solely on the ground of violation of natural justice (no notice or hearing). The State argued review grounds were valid and that the action was in accordance with the Land Revenue Code. The Court found principles of natural justice had been violated and set aside the orders, with liberty to start afresh after affording a hearing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate revenue authorities and courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially where similar statutory frameworks exist |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the mandatory requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to parties affected by proposed review of orders under Section 51, Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
- Affirms that violation of principles of natural justice (absence of notice/hearing) renders such review orders unsustainable in law.
- Authorities must invariably issue notice to the person in whose favour the original order was passed before exercising review jurisdiction.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment as binding authority in Chhattisgarh to invalidate review actions taken without proper notice and hearing.
- The judgment gives liberty for fresh proceedings, but only if procedural safeguards are followed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court identified that the SDO permitted a review of an earlier order favoring the Petitioner without issuing any notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to him.
- The Court held that this omission amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem).
- The Court relied on its earlier decision in WP(C) No.1422 of 2015, as well as authoritative Division Bench decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Biharilal v. State of M.P.; Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue), which squarely addressed this issue.
- All these precedents held that any exercise of review under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code, when the original order was passed in favour of a party, necessarily required the issuing of notice and opportunity of hearing to that party.
- Finding the factual matrix to be identical, the High Court reiterated this binding position and set aside the impugned orders.
- The authorities were, however, permitted to initiate fresh proceedings, provided due process (notice and hearing) was followed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The SDO allowed review proceedings and passed orders without issuing notice or granting an opportunity of hearing.
- Violation of principles of natural justice; law is settled by this Court and Division Benches of MP High Court that notice and hearing are mandatory under Section 51, when order to be reviewed benefits the petitioner.
Respondent State
- Grounds for review were valid, and the administrative action was in accordance with Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
- Absence of notice is a technical ground, which should not entitle the petitioner to relief.
Factual Background
The petitioner was the beneficiary of an administrative order passed under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The SDO subsequently granted permission to the Tahsildar to review that order. The review proceedings were undertaken, and an order was passed without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the process solely on the ground that the review was undertaken in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court examined Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which governs the review of administrative orders.
- The section was interpreted in light of established Division Bench precedents, holding that natural justice (including notice and hearing) is implicitly mandatory before any order in favour of a party may be reviewed under the provision.
- There was no “reading down” or expansion of the text; the requirement was recognized as part of the procedural fairness doctrine embedded within the statute.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.