Non-impleadment of a necessary objector in a revenue appeal violates the principles of natural justice.

The original Respondent No. 5 applied to the Collector, Surajpur, for permission to sell land under Khasra Nos. 411/1 and 434/2

The Petitioner filed a formal objection, alleging that Respondent No. 5 obtained the land records through illegal means and was not in actual possession

Relying on a Tahsildar’s report and the Petitioner’s objections, the Collector rejected the sale permission on October 18, 2019, noting a title and possession dispute

Respondent No. 5 appealed this to the Commissioner, Surguja Division, but failed to implead the Petitioner (the objector) as a party

The Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the Collector’s order on February 17, 2020, without hearing the Petitioner

1. Whether the Commissioner’s order was legally sustainable given the non-joinder of a necessary party (the objector) who had prevailed before the lower authority

2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Commissioner violated the principles of natural justice

The Court applied the fundamental Principle of Natural Justice, specifically Audi Alteram Partem (the right to be heard), which mandates that no person should be condemned unheard

It further applied the procedural doctrine of "Necessary Party," which dictates that any party whose interests are directly affected by a proceeding, or whose presence is necessary for a complete adjudication of the dispute, must be impleaded

The Court observed that the Petitioner was a central figure in the proceedings before the Collector, as the Collector’s refusal to grant sale permission was explicitly based on the Petitioner’s objections regarding illegal record entries and possession disputes

The Court reasoned that by failing to implead the Petitioner, the Appellant (Respondent No. 5) deprived the court of relevant facts

the Commissioner erred by failing to identify this procedural defect and passing an order that adversely affected the Petitioner's rights without granting an opportunity for a hearing

This omission rendered the appellate proceedings fundamentally flawed and violative of natural justice

The Writ Petition was allowed in part, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner, Surguja Division. The Commissioner was directed to decide the matter afresh after ensuring the Petitioner is impleaded as a respondent and provided a fair opportunity of hearing in accordance with the law