&) <L^V. } IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (ONO^s^F 2010 PETITIONER » ^"* ^^ .i. ^y^/" ^ .<V ..•W7\^ ^y r' pv >;<>" Vs M/s Anjani Steels Limited, a company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 503 , Fifth Floor, DDA Building, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi, having its Integrated Steel Plant in village Ujalpur, Tahsil- Gharghora, District Raigarh acting in the premises through its Managing Director Shri Girdhari Yadav, son of Shri Lodhi Yadav, aged about 54 years, resident of Village-Ujalpur, Post - Ghargora, District-Raigarh. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Secretariat, Raipur 2. The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. 3. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG) 4. The Collector, District Raigarh (CG). .- WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : As mentioned above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ^'-4> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR ~ Writ Petition (Cl No.7539 of2010 M/s. Anjani Steels Limited - Versus - Stateof Chhattisgarh and three others Postfor Dronouncement oforder 6n 16 Auaust, 2011 sd/- T.P. Sbarma Judge l!'!l m'"!i"' ^S^SSI^^ii^^si ^ri:»&%B& i*«^ ;ji->*"c<i!, r^. %as'S9s!. 1 '<gjg;gaS®j r •^: ^ r^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Writ Petition rc)No.7539 of 2010 M/s Anjani Steels Limited,a company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions ofthelndian CompaniesAct, 1956 having itsregistered office at 503, Fifth Floor, DDA Building, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi, having its Integrated Steel Plant in village Ujalpur, Tahsil Gharghora, District Raigarh acting in the premises through its Managing Director Shri Girdhari Yadav, son of Shri Lodhi Yadav, aged about 54 years, resident of Village Ujalpur, Post Ghargora, District Raigarh. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Secretariat, Raipur 2. The Board of. Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. 3. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG) 4. The Collector, District Raigarh (CG). {Writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India} . Present: Mr. B.P.Sharma, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey.Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.1, 3 & 4. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (16-8-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner'has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 8-9-2010 passed by the State pf Chhattisgarh in Revenue Case No.F-10-5/ Revenue/2010/Nigrani/Saat-l whereby the State Government has passed aforesaid order in suo motu revision and has quashed the order dated 11-9-2008 passed bythe Collector.Raigarh bywhich the Collector has transferred the .Government land to the Industrial Department of the State. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned gnd copies ofother documents. :;iiT;ll!l!BS •:M-B... ,i^w^:.^;g^ •li'' !8 i'f : 3. As per the order dated 11-9-2008, the Collector, Raigarh has transferred theGovernment land area 20.210 hectares to the Industrial Department of the State. Thereafter, on the basis of one application from the Chief Conservator of Forests dated 3-1-2009 the Collector, Raigarh has reealled the order in exercise of his inherent jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code'), same was challenged before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Appeal Revenue Case No.236/A-19(3)/2008-09 and vide order dated 22-2-2010 the Commissioner has quashed the order on the ground that without affording opportunity of hearing to the parties the order passed was illegal and the Collector is competent to review his own order in terms of Section 51 of the Code. After such order, the Collector applied for permission to review before the Board of Revenue and vide order dated 1-6-2010, the Board of Revenue has refused to permit review of its own order by the Collector, Raigarh. The order passed by the Board of Revenue was taken in suo motu revision by the State and the State has passed the order impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the State Government is not competent to revise the order of its subordinate officer/court in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction without any provisions in the Code. The Revenue Book Circular and its provisions clause4 No.1 para 18 have not been framed underthe provisions ofthe Code. Therefore, without statutory power the State Gpvernment is not competent to review the order passed by the revenue courts. Learned counsel placed reljance in the matter of Ramcharan and others v. State of M.P. and others (1997 RN 141) in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the Revenue Book Cfrcular does not provide any statutory power contrary to the provisjons of the Code. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner herein has invested huge amount of. money after allotment of land to its company and, therefore, allotment cannot be cancelled without any statutory powers. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the State Government is ownerof the land and iscompetent to revise the order passed by the revenue courts, in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The Revenue Book Circular is a scheme for regularization of land of the State, its management, powersand duties exercisable by the revenue officers, prepared by theState Government ^. ^^"--^^^ .'; »-:eSh i ^",: ' "'fl. -i'-';;ti^S^'i^ and the State Government has amended the Revenue Book Circular from timeto time. The Revenue Book Circular is supplement to the Gode which empowers the State Government to review the orders passed by the revenue authorities and by passing such order the State Government has notcommitted any illegality. 6. I have perused all theorders in question. The orderdated 8-9-2010 has been passed by the State Government in exercise of the jurisdiction vestedon itunder the provisions ofthe Revenue Book Circular clase4 No.1 para 18and the State Government has suo moturevised the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 7. While dealing with the question of applicability of the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular especially in contravention to the Land Revenue Code, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ramcharan's case (supra) has held thatthe Codeis consolidated with respectto the law relating to land rgvenue etc. The Revenue Book Circular on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents does not appear to have been framed under theauthority of any statute. 8. Circulars, rules andregulations may be framed under the provisions of the Act which specially authorizes the authority to make such rule, regulation orcircular but, in absence of ahy provision for making such circular, ruleor regulation, any authority including the StateGovernment isnot empowered to make such circular. The circular may be for day to day work of revenue officers to assist them to comply.with the provisions of the Code but not to authorize the authority to review/revise or reverse theorder passed by the authority under the provisions of the Code without any such specific power or provisions ofthe Code. 9, ,0n being asked, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of !'(th&State/respondentsNo.1,3 &4 is alsonot able to convince or able to show such statutory provisionsauthorizing the Stateor any aythority to make such circular. In absence ofsuch statutory powers, definitely, the order passed by the State Goverhment, dated 8-9-2010 Was without jurisdiction and is not sustainable under the law. lO.Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not limited to the order impugned, but it is extendable to correct the order passed by all such authorities/courts/ tribunals. The order dated 1-6-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue s S'^53^ii^iBK'?^t"'osas"!tBS clearly reveals thatpermission forreview has been mainly denied on the ground that the petitioner herein has spent huge amount afterallotment ofland to it, which should not be thesolecriteria for refusing the same. At the time of considering the grant of such permission the courts are under obligation to examine the applicatjon for permission to review in the light of the provisions of Section 51 of the Code which readas fbllows: - "51. Review of orders.-(1) The Board and every Revenue Officermay, either on its/his own motion or on the application ofany party interested review anyorder passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such orderin reference thereto as it/he thihks fit; Provided that— (i) if the Settlement Commissioner, Colleetor or Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, heshall first obtain the sanction ofthe Board, and if an officer subordinate to a Collector - or Settlement Officer proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself orbyanypredecessQr, he shall first obtain the sanction jnwriting ofthe authority to whom he is immedjately subprdinate; ' (i-a) no ordershall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support ofsuch order; (ii) no order from^which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proseedings are pending be reviewed; (iii)no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed excepton the application of a party to the proceedings,and noapplication for the review of such order shall beentertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of theorder. (2) No order shall be.reviewed except on the grounds provided for inJhe.Codeof Civil Procedure, 1908 (Vof 1908). (3) For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be deemed to be the suGcessor in office ofany Revenue Officer who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powersasa Revenue Officer and to whom there is no suecessbrin the district. (4) An order which has been dealt with in appeal or ?on. revision shall not be reviewed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority." 11.As perthe subsequent order passed by the Collector, Raigarh dated 15- 1-2009, itwas noticed after passing ofthe order dated 11-9-2008 that proceeding for declaration of the aforesaid land as forest land (Narangi Van Kshetra) has been initiated and same is uhder active consideration. Theorder dated 11-9-2008 also reveals that in case of need of cutting of tree parties are required to obtain previous sanction which shows that tress are standing on the land before transferring the lands to any pfthe Departments though 1 do not find such provisions or such transfer in the Code which authorizes the Collector to pass such order of transfer. The Collector was under obligation to ensure whether the land is owned by the State or same is forest land. Applying for permission to review of its own order on the ground of such new facts, which were not within its knowledge at the time of passing order, was neither unjustified nor uncalled for. Even otherwise, the Commissioner hasalso opined thatthe Collector is not competent to pass such order underSection 32 of the Code, but is authorized to review the order in accordance with Section 51 of the Code. By rejecting permission for, review, the Board of Revenue has exceeded its. jurisdiction andthe Board of Revenue has also committed illegalityWhich is not sustainable underthelaw. 12.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned passed by the State Govemment in Revenue Case No.F-10-5/Revenue/2010/ Nigrani/Saat-1, dated 8-9-2010 is quashed and the order dated 1-6-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Review Case No.Mis/13/R/A-19(3)/29/2010 is setaside. The case is remitted back to the Board of Revenue for passing order afresh on the basis of application for review made by the Collector, Raigarh inaccordance with Section 51 of the Code. At the time of passing such order, the Board of Revenue is under obligation to consider whether the previous order passed by the Collector was in accordance with any provisionsof the Codeornot. -, 13. Parties are direeted to remain present before the Board of Revenue for further hearing of the case ori12 September. 2011 . 14, No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 'SS^Xs.-vSiif^^S'We.esss^8»cs»ye^^^^,WfW^WI,11 1