Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 WPC No.442 of 2025 K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.03.07 14:39:29 +0530 2025:CGHC:10895 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 442 of 2025 1 - Sonarin Bai Wd/o Baliram Kalar, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Anwari, Tahsil Charama, Distt. Kanker, C. G., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Akhil Kumar (dead) through LRs versus
Legal Reasoning
squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Pradeep Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. 1 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that there is no need to issue notice to the petitioner as on the date of passing the order dated 12/03/2010 by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner was neither appeared nor represented through his counsel. Learned counsel would further submit that the application (I.A.No.17/2023), for bringing remaining legal heirs of respondent No.1 on record, has wrongly been allowed and reiterated the argument made while objecting the said application during the course of argument on 17/10/2023 and hence this writ petition cannot be decided at this stage and 1 WPC No.51/2016 (decided on 24/02/2016) 5 / 6 WPC No.442 of 2025 the petition stands abated, as the petitioner failed to bring the legal heirs on record within a reasonable time. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. As far as the objection raised by Shri H.C. Shukla, learned counsel that I. A. No.17/2023 for bringing the remaining legal heirs of respondent No.1 on record was wrongly allowed is concerned, the said application has been considered by this Court on 17/10/2023 in detail and directed the petitioner to bring the remaining legal heirs of respondent No.1. 7. Replying to a specific query to the counsel for the respondent that whether the order dated 17/10/2023 has been challenged before any higher forum, he submits that this order has not been challenged anywhere and it attained finality. Thus, in my opinion at this stage, again the counsel for the respondent cannot raise the said ground and object the application (I. A. No.17/2023) which has already been allowed by this Court on 17/10/2023. 8. As far as the merits of the case is concerned, it is not in dispute that the order dated 12/03/2010 has been reviewed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 03/04/2010 without any notice to the petitioner and in absence of the petitioner the order has been reviewed which amounts to clear violation of principles of natural justice. 6 / 6 WPC No.442 of 2025 9. This Court in the matter of Pradeep Sharma (supra) held thus at Paras 4 & 5. “4. The issue whether issuance of notice would be necessary to the party in whose favour the order, sought to be reviewed, was passed, need not detain this Court any longer because principles of natural justice has been violated. The order which was sought to be reviewed and in respect of which permission was obtained from SDO was admittedly passed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, exercise of review undertaken under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code necessarily requires notices to be issued to the petitioner. In taking this view, I am supported by the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Biharilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and connected matter, 2010 (2) MPHT 115 (DB) and another order of the Division Bench in the case of Shaheed Anwar Vs. Board of Revenue and another, 2000 RN 76. 5. In view of above, impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and are set aside. The concerned authority however shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”
Arguments
1A - Rupendra Kumar Dwivedi, S/o. Late Shri Akhil Kumar Dwivedi, Aged About 35 Years 1B - Amit Kumar Dwivedi, S/o Late Shri Akhil Kumar Dwivedi Aged About 31 Years Both R/o Ward No. 16, Near District Handloom Office, Mamta Nagar, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 1C - Meenakshi Shukla W/o Surendra Shukla R/o MIG-32, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Colony, Kachna, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 1D - Jyoti Sharma W/o Mr. Priytosh Sharma R/o Brahman Para, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Shyam Bai (Dead) Through Lrs. 2.1 - Dev Narayan S/o Late Shri Bali Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o C/o Manju Jain, Near Kali Mandir, Sorid Ward Nagar, Sai Mandir Gali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. PIN 493773 Tulsiram (Dead) Through Lrs. 3.1 - Daulatram S/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 65 Years 3.2 - Maheshwar S/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 55 Years 2 / 6 WPC No.442 of 2025 3.3 - Mahendra S/o Late Tulsiram, Aged About 50 Years All are R/o Village Anwari, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker C. G. 4 - Ram Singh S/o Ramlal Kalar, R/o Village Anwari Tahsil Charama, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. Ram Prasad (dead) Through LRs 5.1 - Babudas S/o Late Ram Prasad, Aged About 72 Years 5.2 - Jivrakhan S/o Late Ram Prasad, Aged About 58 Years 5.3 - Brijlal S/o Late Ram Prasad, Aged About 55 Years 5.4 - Govind S/o Late Ram Prasad, Aged About 45 Years 5.5 - Dhanraj S/o Late Ram Prasad, Aged About 42 Years 5.6 - Deshram S/o Late Ram Prasad, Aged About 40 Years All are R/o Village Anwari, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker C. G. 6 - Prem Singh S/o Mahnguram Gond, R/o Village Anwari, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Bhagwati D/o Baliram Kalar, R/o Bherawahi, Tahsil And District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 8 – President, Board Of Revenue, Link Court Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent 1C & 1D : Mr. H. C. Shukla, Advocate (through VC) For Respondent No.2.1 : Mr. M. K. Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.3 (ii), (iii), 4, 5 (ii), (iii), (vi) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer 3 / 6 WPC No.442 of 2025 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) 05/03/2025 Order on Board 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 03/04/2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in revenue case No. RW/09/A-6/13/2010 by which the review petition filed by the original respondent No.1 Akhil Kumar (since deceased) has been allowed and the order passed by the Board of Revenue Dated 12/03/2010 in original case No.RN/126/A-46/2002-03 (Akhil Kumar vs. Shyam Bai & Ors.) has been reviewed. 2. (a) The facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the land admeasuring 39.68 acres belongs to late Baliram. After the death of Baliram, the petitioner and respondent No.2 filed an application before the Naib Tahsildar for mutation, who vide order dated 14/08/1995 directed for mutation of names of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 against the land in question. The order dated 14/08/1995 was assailed before the SDO by the respondents 3 to 7, whcih was allowed by order dated 07/06/1999. (b) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, which was allowed by order dated 02/03/2000. Thereagainst the respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by order dated 4 / 6 WPC No.442 of 2025 12/03/2010. Against the said order, the respondent No.1 filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 03/04/2010 and recalled the order dated 12/03/2010. Thus, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier the Board of Revenue passed the order dated 12/03/2010 in favour of the petitioner. He would submit that before reversing the said order, the Board of Revenue has to follow the basic principles of natural justice, however, without issuance of notice to the petitioner the order dated 12/03/2010 has been reviewed. He would also submit that the issue involved in the present case is
Decision
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03/04/2010 passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue for doing the needful in accordance with law. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri