Padmini Bhoi Vs The Board Of Revenue

¶1

1 / 9

¶2

2024:CGHC:43824

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 611 of 2016

¶6

Padmini Bhoi W/o Jitendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Collectorate, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh Presently Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

The Board Of Revenue Through Its Chairman, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶10

The Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

The Sub Divisional Officer Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

(Deleted) Nand Kishore, (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 2110-2024)

¶15

(Deleted) Kanhaiya (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-102024)

¶16

(Deleted) Rambharosa (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-102024)

¶17

(Deleted) Jagu (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-10-2024)

¶18

(Deleted) Mohan (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-10-2024)

¶19

2 / 9

¶20

(Deleted) Girdhan (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-102024)

¶21

(Deleted) Janki (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-10-2024)

¶22

(Deleted) Shankar (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-102024)

¶23

(Deleted) Nirsingh (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-102024)

¶24

(Deleted) Balram (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-10-2024)

¶25

(Deleted) Leelaram (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-102024)

¶26

(Deleted) Suklal (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-10-2024)

¶27

(Deleted) Sohan (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-10-2024)

¶28

(Deleted) Bisahu (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 21-10-2024)

¶29

... Respondents

¶30

For Petitioner : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A.

¶31

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶32

11/11/2024

¶33

The petitioner preferred the present petition being aggrieved by the adverse remarks made by the Board of Revenue against the petitioner while deciding the Review Case No.RN/04/R/B-90(3)/176/2014 and sought for the following reliefs :-

¶34

10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside/ quash the impugned order dated 03.09.2015 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Revenue Board of Chhattisgarh in Revenue Revision Case No.RN/04/R/B90(A)/176/2014 village Bagaud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, only in respect of the impugned specific remark specifically made against the petitioner at para 8 of the order Dated 03/09/2015 regarding that no further

¶35

3 / 9

¶36

allotment work of Revenue Officer will be given to the petitioner in future.

¶37

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside/ quash the impugned letter Dated 11.09.2015 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the Chairman, Board of Revenue Bilaspur sent to Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Chhattisgarh;

¶38

103. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other order(s)/relief(s) in favour of petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, with cost.

¶39

(a) The brief facts of the case for the decision of the writ petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as SDO, (Revenue) at Kurud, District Dhamtari. One Nand Kishore had filed the Revenue Case No.02-B/90(3)/2009-10 seeking declaration to the extent that in the final order passed by competent authority i.e. SDO in case No.204-B/90(3)/1974-75 wherein it was held that total 48.11 acres of dry land would be acquired/merged by the State, therein instead of 48.11 acres approximately the total of 72 . 01 acres of land has been acquired and for which the excess/additional land acquired be returned back to the concerned parties. The petitioner (SDO) while acting as a quasi-judicial authority capacity had adjudicated the said case vide order dated 23/06/2012 and passed an order on the merits of the said case and declared that the land has been acquired on the whims and fancies, which appears to be, prima facie , bad and, therefore, the additional/excess land acquired be returned back to the said applicant.

¶40

(b) The order of the SDO(R) challenged before the Collector in

¶41

4 / 9

¶42

appeal under Section 44 who set aside the order of the SDO(R) and subsequently, the order of Collector was challenged before the Additional Commissioner in Second Appeal under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and the Additional Commissioner vide its order dated 09/07/2014 set aside the order dated 04/08/2013 passed by the Collector and affirmed the order passed by SDO(R) who is petitioner herein. The order of the Additional Commissioner was challenged by the opposite party of that applicant before the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.RN/04/R/B-90(3)/176/2014 by filing a revision and the Board of Revenue while entertaining the revision, set aside the order of the Commissioner as well as the SDO(R) and passed the impugned order in which at paragraph 8 the Board of Revenue has passed adverse remarks against the petitioner with the observation that no further allotment of revenue matter would be made to the petitioner in future. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner is against the paragraph 8 of the order passed by the Board of Revenue which reads as follows:-

¶43

“8. जैसाकि��ण्डि��ा 5 में�ीगयीकि��ेचनासेस्पष्टहै, सक्षम अधि��ारीश्रीमतीप‌द्मि!नीभोई (तत्�ालीनअनुकि�भागीयअधि��ारी, �ुरूद) द्वाराकि+नाकि�सीजांचकि�येतथासीलिंलगअधि�किनयम�े प्रा��ानों�ोदरकि�नार�रतेहुएद्मिजसप्र�ारसेअधि��ारिरतारकिहत तथाकि�धि�ए�ंप्रकि3याकि�रूद्धआदेशपारिरतकि�यागयाहै, उससे राजस्�न्यायालय�ीकि�श्वसनीयता (credibility) प्रभाकि�तहुआहै। इसेध्यानमेंरखतेहुएमैंयहउधिचतसमझताहूंकि�उन्हेंभकि�ष्यमें राजस्�अधि��ारी�ीशकिB प्रदानकि�याजानान्यायकिहतमेंनहीं होगा।अतःसधिच�, छ०.ग०शासन, राजस्�कि�भाग�ोइससं+ं�में �ायG�ाही�रनेहेतुपृथ�सेलिलखाजाये।"

¶44

5 / 9

¶45

The contention of the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue while entertaining the revision against the orders of the revenue authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner as well as the SDO (Revenue) has exceeded its jurisdiction and passed the adverse remarks against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before commenting upon the act of the SDO (Revenue) who has passed the order by exercising power as a quasi-judicial authority.

¶46

The respondents have not filed any reply to the petition filed by the petitioner.

¶47

(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Board of Revenue particularly paragraph 8 of the order of the Board of Revenue which contained adverse remarks against the present petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the petitioner while exercising its jurisdiction as a quasi-judicial authority but before commenting and making any adverse remarks against the petitioner no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the Board of Revenue directed the higher authorities with an observation that no further allotment of revenue matters would be made to the petitioner in future. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the said adverse remarks has been passed by clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶48

6 / 9

¶49

(ii) Learned counsel further submits that the Board of Revenue while exercising revisional jurisdiction has passed the adverse remarks against the petitioner who has acted as an SDO (Revenue) in spite of the fact that the said order has been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner in the appeal under the CGLRC and once the order of the SDO(R) affirmed by the Additional Commissioner while exercising appellate authority under the CGLRC, the adverse remarks against the petitioner is not justified. He also submits that the adverse remarks made by the Board of Revenue are far-reaching and stigmatic to the career of the petitioner and the same has been done without affording any opportunity before passing any such comments against the petitioner who had merely acted in exercise of quasi-judicial power vested under the CGLRC. He lastly submits that the impugned order though commented on the act of the petitioner who was acted as an SDO but it does not utter any word on the Additional Commissioner who had affirmed the order of the petitioner which was also under challenge before the Board of Revenue. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No.2282/2012, Dr. Sandeep Agrawal vs. Sessions Judge, Court of Session, Korba wherein on the same issue in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that before making any remarks, the observation of principles of natural justice is necessary and if that does not followed, the remarks so made cannot be allowed to stand.

¶50

7 / 9

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submits that the Board of Revenue while exercising the revisional jurisdiction has passed the order after examining the records and the remarks made by the Board of Revenue is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court.

¶52

I have heard both the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

¶53

A bare perusal it reflects from paragraph 8 of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) that adverse remark has been made against the petitioner who had acted as an SDO (Revenue) while exercising his power under the CGLRC while entertaining in revenue application. The order dated 23/06/2012 of the SDO was an order on the merit of the case by examining the fact and law involved therein and the said order has been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner in Second Appeal under Section 44(2) of CGLRC. The Additional Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the SDO/petitioner vide its order dated 09/07/2014. The Board of Revenue while considering the revision examined the order of the Additional Commissioner as well as the SDO but passed some adverse remarks as narrated in paragraph 8 of the order impugned and directed that no further allotment of revenue matters would be made to the petitioner in future by questioning the credibility to the career of the petitioner.

¶54

8 / 9

¶55

It is not in dispute that the Board of Revenue while commenting upon the petitioner’s act who had acted as an SDO under the quasi-judicial authority has not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no explanation has been sought from the petitioner and passed the impugned order by making adverse remarks against the petitioner.

¶56

In a similar case when adverse remarks has been made against the doctor by a trial Court in a Session trial, the said adverse remarks were challenged in WPS No.2282/2012, Dr. Sandeep Agrawal vs. Sessions Judge, Court of Session, Korba wherein this Court has opined that “ in the light of the settled legal position detailed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the adverse remarks made against the petitioner by the Sessions Judge cannot be allowed to stand, particularly when, before doing so, the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of explaining his conduct, the remark is not required to be made for just and proper decision of the case and it is harmful for service career of the petitioner. Hence, there is no justification at all for making such adverse remark against the petitioner .”

¶57

In the present case also before making such remarks upon the petitioner, the Board of Revenue has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioner and the adverse remarks has been made against the petitioner which will be harmful for the service career of the

¶58

9 / 9

¶59

petitioner and hence, the said adverse remarks as stated in paragraph 8 of the impugned order dated 03/09/2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue are expunged in the ends of justice and the communication dated 11/09/2015 issued by the Chairman, Board of Revenue to the Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Chhattisgarh is quashed.

¶60

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. No cost(s).

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

$. Bhilwar

Padmini Bhoi v. The Board Of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmini Bhoi v. The Board Of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Nathhani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Mayurika Pandey and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Girja Prasad Mahar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manohar Lal Jeswani (Died Through Lrs) Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anil Tamboli Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bihari Lal Thawait Vs State Of Chhattisgarh