Appellate authority must take additional evidence to resolve conflicting revenue records before summarily quashing orders.

The Petitioner, Mo. Sadiq, sought rectification of revenue entries for land (Khasra Nos. 493 and 528) originally belonging to his grandfather, claiming the name of one Tetri Bai was erroneously recorded during the Surguja State Survey Settlement.

The Tahsildar allowed the rectification in 2011, but the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) set aside this order in 2012, observing that the B-1 records of 1990-91 contained both parties' names and that the Tahsildar had failed to conduct a proper inquiry.

Subsequent review and revision petitions filed by the Petitioner were dismissed in 2018 and 2025, respectively.

The Petitioner approached the High Court challenging the SDO’s appellate order, the review dismissal, and the revision dismissal, arguing that the SDO should have taken additional evidence under Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 ("Code 1959") rather than outright setting aside the Tahsildar's order.

1. Whether the SDO (Revenue) was legally obligated to take additional evidence under Section 49(3) of the Code 1959 to resolve discrepancies in the revenue records before setting aside the Tahsildar's order.

2. Whether the orders passed in the subsequent review and revision proceedings were sustainable given the procedural history of the case.

Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Section 49(3) empowers an appellate authority to confirm, vary, or reverse an order, or take additional evidence necessary for passing its order, while specifically prohibiting the remand of the case to a subordinate Revenue Officer.

The High Court observed that the SDO (Revenue) set aside the Tahsildar’s order based solely on the observation that the 1990-91 B-1 records reflected the names of both the Petitioner and the deceased Tetri Bai.

The Court reasoned that under Section 49(3) of the Code 1959, the SDO should have taken additional evidence to resolve the confusion or lacuna regarding the dual entries in the revenue record instead of summarily quashing the lower authority's order.

The Court further noted that while the Petitioner had incorrectly pursued review and revision proceedings instead of a proper appeal against the 2012 SDO order, the original appellate order was fundamentally flawed for failing to exercise the powers prescribed under Section 49(3).

The Court directed the SDO (Revenue), Ramanujganj, to restore the original Revenue Appeal Case (No. 29A-6A/2010-2011) and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, specifically exercising powers under Section 49(3) of the Code 1959.

The SDO was ordered to conclude the exercise within 90 days of receiving the order after providing both parties an opportunity to be heard.