Quashed¶82

Deva Das Chaturvedi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2025WPC/2218/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 51 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 suo motu review without notice natural justice mutation set aside quashed remand Khasra No. 109 village Chheetapar Nawagarh Bemetara Shamshan Ghat cremation land Section 242 Section 44 alternative remedy bonafide purchaser subsequent purchaser recorded tenure holder necessary parties WPC 6392 of 2024 WPC 144 of 2025 WPC 160 of 2025 WPC 2218 of 2025 Article 226

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.11.2024 of the SDO (R) Nawagarh quashed; matter remitted to the SDO (Revenue), Nawagarh to reconsider the review proceedings afresh after issuing notice and affording hearing to the petitioners and affected parties; no opinion expressed on merits; WPC No. 2218 of 2025 disposed of in terms of WPC Nos. 6392 of 2024, 144 of 2025 and 160 of 2025. ¶82

Deva Das Chaturvedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶82

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the SDO (R) in review under Section 51 without issuance of notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners — bonafide purchasers whose names were already mutated — is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. +2 more

¶66

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 29.11.2024 was passed by the SDO (R) in exercise of powers under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, but the review was undertaken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who had purchased the land through registered sale deeds and whose names had already been mutated in the revenue records.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

Section 51 of the Code and the settled principles of natural justice mandate that before any order adversely affecting the rights of parties is passed, notice and opportunity of hearing must be granted to the affected parties; failure to do so vitiates the proceedings.

¶78

Key takeaways

The petitioners, being subsequent purchasers and recorded tenure holders, were necessary parties to the review proceedings; the non-issuance of notice to them and the passing of the impugned order behind their back renders the order unsustainable.ratio¶79
The impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the SDO (R) Nawagarh is quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nawagarh to reconsider the review proceedings afresh, in concordance with law, after issuing notice and affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the affected parties.ratio¶82

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arvind Kumar Verma, J. — Four connected writ petitions (WPC Nos. 6392 of 2024, 144 of 2025, 160 of 2025 and 2218 of 2025) challenged the order dated 29.11.2024 of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nawagarh, whereby, in a suo motu review under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 initiated more than four years later, the mutation order dated 14.02.2019 concerning Khasra No. 109 (0.12 ha), village Chheetapar, was set aside. HELD: the purchasers, whose names stood mutated in the revenue records pursuant to registered sale deeds from respondent No.6, were subsequent purchasers, recorded tenure holders and necessary parties to the review; the review was decided without notice or opportunity of hearing to them, contrary to Section 51 of the Code and the principles of natural justice, rendering the order unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the SDO (R) to reconsider the review afresh after notice and hearing, with no opinion expressed on the merits. The State's contentions — initiation of Section 242 proceedings treating the land as cremation land (Shamshan Ghat) attaining finality, prior Collector permission for the review, and the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 44 — were noted but not adjudicated. WPC No. 2218 of 2025 by the vendor (Deva Das Chaturvedi) was disposed of in terms of the other petitions, he having already alienated the land.

2025:CGHC:45313

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 6392 of 2024

¶6

1 - Vikas Soni S/o Shri Baijnath Soni, Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Nawagarh, Thana And Tahsil - Nawagarh, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village-Nandan, Thana And Tahsil- Nawagarh, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Collector, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nawagarh, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Tahsildar Nawagarh, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶14

5 - Gram Panchayat Samesar Through Its Secretary, Gram Panchayat Samesar, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, District-Bemetara (C.G.) Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2025.09.08 14:50:58 +0530

¶15

¶16

6 - Devdas S/o Shri Paklu Chaturvedi, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village-Chhirkapur, Thana And Tahsil-Nawagarh, District-Bemetara (C.G.)

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

WPC No. 144 of 2025

¶19

1 - Smt. Suman Sahu W/o Shri Dilip Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Nawagarh, Thana And Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt.Bemetara, C.G.

¶20

--- Petitioner(s)

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶23

2 - Collector Bemertara, Distt. - Bemetara, C.G.

¶24

3 - Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh, Distt. - Bemetara, C.G.

¶25

4 - Tahsildar Nawagarh, Distt. - Bemetara, C.G.

¶26

5 - Gram Panchayat Samesar Through Its Secretary, Gram Panchayat Samesar, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶27

6 - Devdas S/o Shri Paklu Chaturvedi Aged About 50 Years R/o VillageChhirkapur, Thana And Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶28

Respondent(s)

¶29

¶30

WPC No. 160 of 2025

¶31

1 - Smt. Rijwana Qureshi W/o Shri Jamal Qurershi Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Nawagarh, Thana And Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶32

2 - Dhanesh S/o Shri Dhiraji Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 42, Thana And Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶33

--- Petitioner(s)

¶34

Versus

¶35

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶36

2 - Collector Bemetara, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶37

3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶38

4 - Tahsildar Nawagarh, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶39

5 - Gram Panchayat Samesar Through Its Secretary, Gram Panchayat Samesar, Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶40

6 - Devdas S/o Shri Paklu Chaturvedi Aged About 50 Years R/o VillageChhirkapur, Thana And Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt.- Bemetara, C.G.

¶41

Respondent(s)

¶42

WPC No. 2218 of 2025

¶43

1 - Deva Das Chaturvedi S/o Paklu Chaturvedi Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No.-09, Village - Chherkpur, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶44

--- Petitioner(s)

¶45

¶46

Versus

¶47

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶48

2 - Collector Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶49

3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Navagarh, District – Bemetara (C.G.)

¶50

4 - Sanat Joshi S/o Shri Anjori Joshi Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Chhitapar, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶51

5 - Sampatdas S/o Shri Anjori Joshi Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Chhitapar, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶52

6 - Ganpat S/o Shri Anjori Joshi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Chhitapar, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶53

7 - Samelal S/o Hemlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Chhitapar, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶54

8 - Charan Joshi S/o Ishwari Prasad Joshi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Chhitapar, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶55

9 - Jalesh Joshi S/o Puhup Joshi (Up Sarpanch) Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Chhitapar, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶56

10 - Chandra Kanta W/o Jalesh Joshi Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Chhitapar, Tehsil - Navagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.)

¶57

11 - Vaibhav Tamboli S/o Santosh Tamboli Aged About 46 Years R/o Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶58

¶59

12 - Abhishek Pathak S/o Permeshwar Pathak Aged About 42 Years R/o Tehsil - Navagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶60

--- Respondent(s)

¶61

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Sunil Sahu, Shri Samir Singh and Shri Shailendra Bajpai, (WPC No. 2218 of 2025 Advocates for the respective parties.
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy.GA
For Respondent No.5	: Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.6	Shri Shailendra Bajpai, Advocate

¶62

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶63

Order on Board

¶64

04/09/2025

¶65

The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nawagarh whereby the earlier mutation order dated 14.02.2019 was reviewed and set aside under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

¶66

The principal contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that they had purchased a land in question ie. Khasra No. 109, admeasuring 0.12 hectares situated at village Chheetapar, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara through registered sale deeds from respondent No.6 and their names had already been mutated in the revenue records. It is urged that the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 has been passed in review proceeding without issuance of notice or affording them an opportunity of hearing which is contrary to Section 51 of the Code of 1959 as well as the principles of natural justice.

¶67

¶68

Contention of the counsels for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the SDO(R) Nawagarh, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that the petitioners had lawfully purchased the land in question ie. Khasra No. 109, admeasuring 0.12 hectares through registered sale deeds from respondent No.6 and their names were duly mutated in the revenue records after following due procedure of law. The petitioners have since been in peaceful possession and have raised constructions thereon.

¶69

It is further contended that the review proceedings under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 were initiated suo motu by the SDO (R) after more than four years of the original order dated 14.02.2019., without any valid justification for the delay. Counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that Section 51 of the Code mandates issuance of notice to affected parties before setting aside an earlier order. In the instant case, no notice was issued to the petitioners, who are bonafide purchasers, thereby vitiating the proceedings. Thus, it is contended that the order passed by the SDO (R) without affording an opportunity of haring to affected parties are nullifies in law. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may be quashed.

¶70

Learned State counsel submits that the proceedings under Section 242 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 had already been initiated on the basis of the Collector’s letter dated 26.12.2017 which clearly recorded that Khasra No. 109 was being used a cremation land ( Shamshan Ghat ) by the villagers. It has been argued

¶71

¶72

that the SDO (R) had passed the order on 23.01.2018 recognizing the land as cremation land, which was subsequently upheld by the Collector on 08.07.2019 and affirmed by the Commissioner on 14.12.2023. Thus, the matter had already attained finality under Section 242 of the Code. It was further argued that the impugned order dated 29.12.2024 was passed strictly in accordance with Section 51 of the Code after obtaining prior permission from the Collector, Bemetra and that there is neither illegality nor arbitrariness in the same. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable since the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 44 of the Code but they have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶73

Counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the answering respondent is merely a formal party and has no adjudicatory or quasijudicial role in the proceedings culminating in the impugned order. It is argued that no relief has been claimed against this respondent and therefore the writ petition in so far as it pertains to respondent No.5 deserves to be dismissed.

¶74

On behalf of counsel for respondent No.6 it has been contended that he had lawfully purchased the land from its recorded owner through a registered sale deed dated 09.09.2017 and his name was duly mutated in the revenue records by the order of SDO (R) dated 14.02.2019. He submits that on the basis of this valid mutation, he subsequently executed registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners who are the bonafide purchasers.

¶75

¶76

It is submitted that the review proceedings initiated suo motu after more than four years without notice to the petitioners (who had already acquired legal rights in the property) is ex facie contrary to Section 51 of the Code and violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the impugned order was passed in undue haste without assigning proper reasons and without hearing the necessary parties, thereby rendering it unsustainable in law.

¶77

Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of records, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Nawagarh in exercise of powers under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. However, it is manifest from the record that the review was undertaken without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who had purchased the land in question through registered sale deeds and whose names had already been mutated in the revenue records.

¶78

The provision to Section 51 of the Code as well a the settled principles of natural justice mandate that before any order adversely affecting the rights of the parties is passed, notice and opportunity of hearing must be granted to the affected parties. Failure to do so vitiates the proceedings.

¶79

In the present case, the petitioners being the subsequent purchasers and recorded tenure holders, were necessary parties to the review proceedings. The non-issuance of notice to them and the

¶80

¶81

passing of the impugned order behind their back renders the order unsustainable.

¶82

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the SDO (R) Nawagarh is herby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nawagarh to reconsider the review proceedings afresh, in concordance with law, after issuing notice and affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the affected parties.

¶83

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the SDO (R) shall decide the matter without being influenced by any observations made therein in accordance with law.

¶84

13. So far as the WPC No. 2218 of 2025 is concerned, it is an admitted position that the petitioner herein has already alienated the land in question in favour of the private respondents and therefore in view of the disposal of WPC Nos. 6392 of 2024, 144 of 2025 and 160 of 2025 no separate adjudication is required in the present petitioner. Accordingly, the WPC No. 2218 of 2025 is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned writ petitions.

¶85

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶86

Judge

Deva Das Chaturvedi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deva Das Chaturvedi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toman Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rupendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bankat Singh Vs Janardan Singh

Jagdal Singh Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh