WPC/3405/2021 of SHRAVAN KUMAR BAMHANKAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE on 27 September 2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1) That the order dated 14.07.2021 as Annexure-P/1 passed by the Respondent no. 1 should be quashed.

2) That the land bearing Khasra no. 305/3 and 305/4 village Tuta patwari halka no. 137 Revenue Inspector Circle, Abhanpur Tahsil, Abhanpur, District-Raipur is recorded in Revenue record B1 and P2 khasra pansala in the name of present petitioner.

3) That the Hon'ble Court kindly be please to State Authority to acquire legal possession of aforesaid land with proper compensation in the favour of present petitioner.

4) Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while cancelling the patta, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the concerned Additional Collector cancelling the patta without granting an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Revenue, Raipur Division, on 19.03.2018, which was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue on 31.10.2019, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, on 14.07.2021, which was also dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that, despite specifically raising the ground regarding denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the said ground was not considered in the revision, and the matter was decided on merits without recording any finding as to whether the petitioner had actually been afforded an opportunity of hearing. He further submits that, in an identical matter concerning another petitioner, the State Government, vide order dated 20.09.2010, had remanded the matter to the concerned Additional Collector with a direction to hear the matter afresh after granting due opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioner, which is evident from the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur. Learned counsel submits that, in the said identical matter, the State Government had specifically considered the fact that an opportunity of hearing had not been granted to the concerned petitioner, Smt. Mahendra Kaur, and had accordingly remanded the matter to the concerned Additional Collector for hearing the petitioner and passing an appropriate order after affording due opportunity of hearing. He therefore submits that the same course ought to have been adopted in the present case; however, the State Government, without considering the fact that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing, proceeded to decide the matter on merits. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 deserves to be quashed and the matter be remanded to the concerned Additional Collector for consideration afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that a show-cause notice had already been issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not available in the village and, therefore, the notice could not be served upon him. It is further submitted that a proclamation was also made, but the petitioner was not found available in the village. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing.

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

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the specific submission made by the State Government that the petitioner was not found available in the said village and, therefore, the notice could not be served upon him, this Court is of the firm view that, in fact, the notice was not served upon the petitioner and he was not granted any opportunity of hearing. The same is evident from the non-service of notice upon the petitioner. The concerned State Government has considered this aspect in another petition; therefore, the principle of parity would also apply in the present case. The State Government has committed an error of law in not considering the specific ground raised by the petitioner that he was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing in the revision petition filed before the State Government.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 14.07.2021 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector, Raipur, for consideration afresh. Since the matter is an old one, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Additional Collector along with a copy of this order on 26th October, 2026. In turn, the concerned Additional Collector, Raipur, shall call for the relevant records and consider the matter and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

Raghu Jat