A Tehsildar must implement the Collector’s final, unchallenged order granting land possession.

The petitioners’ land had been acquired for road construction, with other land to be provided in exchange.

On 11 January 2018, the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, directed the Tehsildar to hand over specified parcels at Tatapani to the petitioners: Khasra No. 231 (0.22 hectare), Khasra No. 232 (0.75 hectare), and Khasra No. 3 (1.03 hectares).

The petitioners alleged that, despite repeated representations, the Tehsildar had not delivered possession.

They sought enforcement of the Collector’s order, which, according to the parties, had not been challenged before a higher authority.

The State submitted that the Tehsildar could be directed to comply.

1. Whether the Tehsildar should be directed to implement the Collector’s order of 11 January 2018, which had not been shown to have been challenged before a higher authority.

2. Whether the petitioners should be informed of any challenge to that order so they may pursue appropriate legal remedies.

The Court cited no precedent or specific statutory provision as the basis for its decision.

It applied the principle that an administrative order directing the grant of possession, which has not been challenged before a higher authority and has attained finality, should be complied with by the responsible official.

Although Section 234 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was referred to in the account of the land-exchange proceedings, the Court did not rely on or interpret that provision in its operative reasoning.

The Collector’s order expressly directed the Tehsildar to deliver possession of the specified land to the petitioners.

The Court noted that the order had remained unimplemented since 2018 and that, as presented by the parties, it had not been challenged before a higher authority.

It therefore treated the order as having attained finality and directed its implementation.

To preserve the petitioners’ ability to respond if that factual premise proved incorrect, the Court required the Tehsildar to notify them if the order had in fact been challenged.

If the Collector’s order had been challenged before another authority, the Tehsildar was to inform the petitioners so they could pursue appropriate legal remedies.

The Court further stated that failure to comply with its direction could result in suo motu contempt proceedings.