Allowed

Ati Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Apr 2016WPC/836/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order granting permission to review a favorable administrative decision under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code. The court held that issuing a notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the person in whose favor the original order was passed is mandatory under principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set asi

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside the petition and granting permission for review without notice are set aside. The concerned authority is directed to initiate fresh proceedings after affording proper opp

Ati Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 836 of 2016

¶4

Ati Agrawal D/o Gulabchand Agrawal, Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Town Hall, Raigarh, P.S. Kotwali, Tahsil & District Raigarh, Civil & Revenue District Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

The Collector, Janjgir- Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Sub- Divisional Officer ( Revenue), Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Tahsildar, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

Executive Engineer, Water Resources Survey And Barrage Construction Division No.1, Kharsiya, District Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

Sub- Divisional Officer, Water Resources Survey And Barrage Construction Sub Division No.2, Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Advocate. For State : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy.A.G.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Order On Board

06/04/2016

Heard.

The challenge is to the impugned order by which, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ respondent No.3 has granted permission to Tahsildar to review its earlier order. Pursuant to the impugned order, the Tahsildar has now initiated review proceedings and passed the order also.

¶21

The order earlier passed by the SDO granting permission to review, has been assailed on the sole ground that the said exercise has been undertaken without issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra. He submits that in identical matter WP(C) No.1422 of 2015 vide order dated 01.10.2015, this Court relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Biharilal v. State of M.P. and others and connected matter, 2010 (2) MPHT 115 (DB) and another order of the Division Bench in the case of Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue and another, 2000 RN 76 has held that the order which was sought to be reviewed and in respect of which permission was obtained from SDO was passed in favour of the petitioner and therefore, exercise of review undertaken under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code necessarily required notices to be issued to the person in whose favour the order, sought to be reviewed was passed.

¶23

Learned State counsel submits that the grounds on which review has been sought are not valid. Therefore, only on this technical ground, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¶24

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.

¶25

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 (supra) and another order of the Division Bench in the case of Shaheed Anwar (supra).

¶26

In view of the 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

¶27

petitioner.

¶28

The petition is accordingly allowed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge

¶31

Rekha

Ati Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ati Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Devid Kumar Thakur

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kamleshwar Gour

Shanti Bai Prabhuva Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rashmi Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Poonam Chand Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Menka Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh