Collateral proceedings before the Board cannot bypass a pending statutory appeal concerning lease cancellation.

Ahiwaran was granted a lease over land bearing Khasra No. 25/1, measuring approximately 2 acres, at Village Tuba, District Jashpur, which was subsequently recorded as Khasra No. 25/72. In 2003, the petitioner purchased the land from Ahiwaran through a registered sale deed dated 29 October 2003, after which his name was mutated in the revenue records and he claimed possession over the land.

Respondent No. 1, Ahiwaran’s daughter, complained that the transfer was unlawful because prior permission of the Collector had not been obtained for alienation of the leased land. Following an enquiry, the Collector cancelled Ahiwaran’s lease by order dated 6 October 2025 and directed initiation of consequential proceedings for restoration of the land.

The petitioner challenged the Collector’s order before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, where the appeal remained pending. During the pendency of that appeal, the Tehsildar issued a memo dated 5 May 2026 directing the Patwari to remove the petitioner’s possession from the land.

The petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue under Sections 8 and 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and also invoked Section 52 seeking relief against the consequential proceedings. The Board rejected the applications by order dated 26 May 2026, holding that the matter concerned a Government lease and that the statutory remedy lay before the Commissioner or the State Government in accordance with the Revenue Book Circular.

1. Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s applications under Sections 8 and 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, when the petitioner’s appeal against the Collector’s order was already pending before the Commissioner?

2. Whether the legality and consequential implementation of the Collector’s order cancelling the lease could be examined in collateral proceedings before the Board of Revenue?

3. Whether protection against dispossession was warranted during the pendency of the petitioner’s appeal before the Commissioner?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction and ordinarily does not interfere where an efficacious statutory proceeding is pending.

Sections 8 and 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 were considered in the context of the petitioner’s challenge to the Tehsildar’s consequential execution proceedings, while Section 52 was relevant to the petitioner’s application for interim or protective relief.

The Court also applied Part IV, Serial No. 3, particularly Clause 30, of the Revenue Book Circular: an appeal against an original allotment order passed by the Collector lies before the Commissioner within the prescribed period, and the appellate order is final in the manner specified; revision before the Commissioner is available where the appeal remedy was not availed.

The Court further held that issues directly connected with the cancellation of the lease and restoration of the land should be adjudicated in the pending statutory appeal and not through simultaneous collateral proceedings before the Board of Revenue.

The petitioner had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy before the Commissioner against the Collector’s order dated 6 October 2025, and that appeal remained pending.

Since the validity and effect of the lease cancellation, including the proposed restoration and dispossession, were directly connected with the subject matter of that appeal, the Board of Revenue was not required to examine the same issues collaterally under Sections 8 and 32 of the Code.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not shown that any further statutory remedy had been pursued against the Commissioner’s order dated 17 April 2026 rejecting his application under Section 52.

Consequently, no jurisdictional or legal error warranting interference under Article 227 was established. However, because dispossession proceedings had been initiated during the pendency of the appeal, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the existing position temporarily and direct expeditious disposal of the appeal.

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Until such decision, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the subject land, and no party was permitted to create any third-party interest.

The petitioner was directed to file a copy of the High Court’s order before the Commissioner within one week.