AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Collector as well as the order dated 05.05.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division granting permission to the Collector to review the order dated 17.09.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before granting permission to review, an opportunity of hearing has not been granted which runs contrary to the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.(227) No.3225 of 2011, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Learned State counsel would support the impugned orders and submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein and also gone through the documents appended with the petition.
In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be expedient to notice Section 51 (1) (i) and (i-a) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as “Code”) which states as under:-
Review of orders.-(1) The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit; Provided that-
if the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate; (i-a) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order;”
The aforesaid provision would clearly state that permission cannot be granted without noticing and without hearing to the person to be affected by granting permission to review, therefore, opportunity must be granted before granting permission to review the order and the Sanctioning Authority must apply its judicial mind before granting sanction.
The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue and another1 has held that under first proviso to Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 sanction for review by Board or Revenue Officer cannot be granted without notice and hearing the other side.
Similarly, in the matter of Ravi Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others2, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that power to sanction for review cannot be granted by the sanctioning authority mechanically and the order must show application of mind and held as under:-
“21.A power of Review is vested in the Court so that the said Court can correct the wrong which has been committed by it. It may be a case where the same Court/authority after learning about the wrong committed by it wants to correct the wrong. It can exercise the powers either on an application or suo motu. In case of a revision the superior Court invested with powers of revision want to correct the wrong committed by his subordinate. The superior Court may exercise these powers suo motu or on an application by the aggrieved party. The powers infact are such which can be exercised by the same court or by the revisional Court because each of the court wants to correct the wrong. In case of review the anxiety is of the same Court while in the case of revision the anxiety is of the superior Court. While granting permission for review the authority is not required to give a mechanical sanction. The order must show application of mind. It must appear form the order that the authority was not swayed away, but the order must show that it has considered the facts and after application of the mind has granted the permission……..”
The principle of law laid-down in Shaheed Anwar (supra) and Ravi Narayan (supra) has been further followed in Biharilal v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others3 reiterating that sanction for review cannot be granted by sanctioning authority without affording opportunity of hearing to the other side and sanction order must show application of mind and it has been held as under:-
“12.It is further to be seen that a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Shaheed Anwar Vs. Board of Revenue and another, 2000 Revenue Nirnay 76, has observed that under Section 51 Proviso 1 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 sanction for review by Board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without any notice to and hearing other side. A juxtapose reading of the judgment in the matters of Ravi Narayan and Shaheed Anwar (supra), would spell out that review for sanction cannot be granted without affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side and the review cannot be made mechanically. The scheme of Section 51 and the principles of natural justice if are taken up together they will make it clear that opportunity of hearing is to be granted to the other side so that it may convince the Sanctioning Authority that case on hands is not worth grant of sanction for review. He can also convince the authority that because of the lapse of time the authority should not now exercise the powers of review or granting sanction. The other side can well convince the authority that the case on hands is not such where absolute illegality has been committed and possibility of the other view would not justify grant of sanction for review.”
Since the order dated 05.05.2020 has been passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, permitting the Collector to review its order dated 17.09.2018 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it has been passed mechanically without application of judicial mind, therefore, it is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner, Durg Division, to hear the petitioner and the respondent No.5 on the question of granting permission to review the order dated 17.09.2018 and pass an order within a period of three months from the date of first hearing of the parties.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated herein above. No cost(s).
Sd/-(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge