Directing Initiation of Statutory Inquiry into Lease Cancellation for Code Violations Does Not Constitute Final Adjudication.

The petitioners’ father and uncles were granted a lease of Government land (Khasra No. 968/31).

One uncle allegedly executed a fraudulent sale deed in 2012 in favor of Respondent No. 5 without the father’s consent or the District Collector's prior permission.

Based on this deed, the land was mutated in Respondent No. 5's name in 2013.

The petitioners challenged this before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who set aside the mutation in 2017 due to procedural lapses and violation of Section 165(7)(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

On appeal, the Commissioner affirmed the cancellation of the mutation but further directed the initiation of proceedings to cancel the original lease granted to the petitioners’ predecessor.

The Board of Revenue upheld this direction in 2022.

The petitioners moved the High Court, arguing that since they dispute the validity of the sale deed, the lease should not be subject to cancellation.

1. Whether the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue committed a jurisdictional error or manifest illegality by directing the initiation of lease cancellation proceedings under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

2. Whether a direction to initiate an inquiry into the violation of Section 165(7)(B) of the Code, 1959, warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution before a final determination is made.

Section 165(7)(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which prohibits the transfer of leasehold Government land without prior permission from the Collector.

Principles of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which limits interference to cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

Statutory authorities must afford a "due opportunity of hearing" before adverse determination of civil rights as per the principles of natural justice.

The Court reasoned that the impugned orders by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue did not actually cancel the petitioners' lease but merely directed the competent authority to initiate an inquiry to see if Section 165(7)(B) had been breached.

The Court observed that the existence of a registered sale deed for Government leasehold land, made without the Collector's permission, constitutes prima facie grounds for the State to examine the lease's validity.

It rejected the petitioners' argument that their claim of "fraud" should stop the inquiry, noting that such disputed questions of fact regarding the validity of the sale deed must be resolved by the statutory authority during the inquiry itself.

The Court concluded that since no final order affecting the petitioners' rights had been passed, the challenge was premature.

The Court ordered that if lease cancellation proceedings are initiated, the competent authority must decide the matter independently on its merits, strictly in accordance with the law, and after providing the petitioners a full opportunity to be heard. No order as to costs.