An adverse revisional order passed without notice and hearing violates natural justice and must be quashed.

The petitioner applied before the Additional Collector, Raigarh, for exchange of his privately owned land comprising Khasra Nos. 468/1, 417, 419/1 and 460/1, measuring 1.800 hectares at Kurmibhawna, Tahsil Gharghoda, with Government land bearing Khasra No. 32/2, measuring 1.692 hectares at Village Taraimal, Gharghoda, Raigarh.

After obtaining reports from the concerned revenue authorities, the Additional Collector allowed the exchange by order dated 25 March 2010.

Respondent No. 2 challenged that order before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, but the appeal was dismissed on 21 September 2012.

Respondent No. 2 thereafter preferred a revision before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue. Although notice was ordered to be issued to the petitioner, the record showed that notice was not served and the petitioner did not appear in the proceedings.

The Board nevertheless allowed the revision on 15 July 2021 and set aside the orders of the Additional Collector and the Commissioner.

The petitioner challenged the Board’s order under Article 227 of the Constitution, principally on the ground that it had been passed without notice or an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue could decide the revision on merits and set aside orders passed in the petitioner’s favour without ensuring service of notice and providing him an opportunity of hearing?

Whether the Board of Revenue’s order dated 15 July 2021 was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals to ensure legality, procedural regularity and adherence to principles of natural justice.

The Court applied the audi alteram partem rule, namely, that a person directly affected by an adjudicatory order must receive proper notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing before the matter is decided on merits.

The Court found no specific statutory provision or precedent necessary to determine the matter; the decision rested on the procedural requirement of natural justice and fair hearing.

The petitioner was the beneficiary of the Additional Collector’s order and the Commissioner’s affirming order, and was therefore a necessary and directly affected party in the revision proceedings.

The Board’s order sheets showed that notice to the petitioner had not been served and that he had not appeared in the proceedings.

Despite this, the Board adjudicated the revision on merits and set aside the orders passed in the petitioner’s favour.

By proceeding in the petitioner’s absence without effective service of notice, the Board violated the audi alteram partem principle and acted with procedural illegality.

The High Court therefore exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to annul the Board’s order and restore the matter for fresh adjudication after hearing all concerned parties.

It held that the Board of Revenue had acted illegally by allowing the revision without ensuring service of notice or providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The order dated 15 July 2021 was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after granting proper opportunity of hearing to the parties.

The parties were directed to appear before the Board on 29 September 2026, and the writ petition was accordingly allowed.