Allowed

Smt. Kaushilya Devi Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2016WPC/901/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that initiation of review proceedings under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code requires prior notice to the party in whose favour the original order was passed. Setting aside orders passed without notice, the Court directed fresh proceedings with a fair opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; concerned authority directed to initiate fresh proceedings after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Smt. Kaushilya Devi Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPC No. 901 of 2016

¶4

Smt. Kaushilya Devi Agrawal, wife of Shri Rajendra Prasad Agrawal, aged about 50 years, resident of Hatri Chowk, Sakti, Tehsil Sakti, District – Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

District Collector, Collectorate, Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

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

¶10

Tahsildar, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

Shri Abhyuday Singh, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy.A.G. for the State.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

11/04/2016

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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).

¶23

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 petitioner.

¶24

The petition is accordingly allowed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge

¶27

Deepti

Smt. Kaushilya Devi Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kaushilya Devi 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

Hemraj Chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mustaq Ali Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramkripal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sauragh Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Monika Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gandhi Sewa Samiti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh