Allowed

Sushil Kumar Tripathi v. Board of Revenue

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026WPC/3483/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order of the Commissioner, Surguja Division, dated 06.01.2020, passed in a revisional proceeding, because the notice to the petitioner was returned unserved and the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits after giving due notice and hearing to all parties. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Commissioner on 12.10.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.01.2020 set aside; matter remanded to Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur for fresh consideration on merits after affording effective opportunity of hearing; petitioner directed to appear on 12.10.2026.

Sushil Kumar Tripathi Vs Board of Revenue — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010223172023

2026:CGHC:40496

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3483 of 2023

¶7

1 - Sushil Kumar Tripathi S/o Shree Ram Milan Tripathi, Aged About 59 Years Mandal Sanyojak, M.P. Vanvasi Seva Mandal, High School, Ila, Vanvasi Seva Mandal, Office At Namanakala, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Commissioner, Surguja Division/ Sambhag, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Ashok Kumar S/o Kunjram, R/o Village Ila, Tehsil And Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Anand Kumar S/o Kunjram R/o Village Ila, Tehsil And Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

¶17

7 - Puran S/o Rupan Sai R/o Village Ila, Tehsil And Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶18

8 - Tilak S/o Chungru Ram R/o Village Ila, Tehsil And Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶19

9 - Dhani Ram S/o Chungaru Ram R/o Village Ila, Tehsil And Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶20

10 - Kamal Sai S/o Chungaru Ram R/o Village Ila, Tehsil And Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶23

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L. For Respondents No. 5 to 10:Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate

¶24

SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶25

Order on Board

¶26

16.09.2026

¶27

1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-

¶28

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction, settingaside/quashing the impugned order dated 06/01/2020 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Respondent Commissioner, Surguja, Ambikapur, district Surguja, CG in Revenue Case no. 171/A-23-/2012-2013 in the interest of justice.

¶29

¶30

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order which may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances.”

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, was allowed vide impugned order dated 06.01.2020 without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that when the revision was taken up on 26.11.2019, the Commissioner had directed issuance of notice to the concerned parties, pursuant to which notice was issued for appearance on 10.12.2019. However, the said notice was returned by the process server on 09.12.2019 with an endorsement that the notice had been received by the process server. Learned counsel further submits that, from a perusal of the service report and the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner was not present before the revisional authority and no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order, having been passed behind the back of the petitioner and in breach of the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in law. It is further submitted that once the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to contest the revision and place his case before the revisional authority, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and thereafter passing an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶32

¶33

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that, from the order-sheet, it is apparent that the notice issued to the petitioner could not be served and was returned unserved on 09.12.2019. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order was not passed without notice to the petitioner, as the notice issued by the revisional authority had remained unserved.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 to 10 submits that he is unable to dispute the fact that the notice issued to the petitioner remained unserved and was returned. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing. It is accordingly submitted that, in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded to the revisional authority for fresh consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶36

From a perusal of the order-sheet and the service report, it is apparent that the notice issued to the petitioner remained unserved and was returned on 09.12.2019. Thus, before passing the impugned order dated 06.01.2020, the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing. The impugned order, therefore, having been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law.

¶37

¶38

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, in Revenue Case No. 171/A-23-/2012-2013 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, for fresh consideration and decision on merits, in accordance with law, after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all other concerned parties.

¶39

The petitioner shall appear before the learned Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, on 12.10.2026. Upon appearance, the learned Commissioner shall proceed with the matter and pass an appropriate order on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

¶40

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the learned Commissioner shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law.

¶41

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

sd/-

¶43

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶44

Vishakha

Sushil Kumar Tripathi v. Board of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Tripathi v. Board of Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases