Non-speaking order rejecting interim stay in disputes involving long-term land possession is legally unsustainable.

The petitioners, legal heirs of original Patta (land title) holders, claim their ancestors were granted cultivable agricultural land in Village Dhanora, Durg, in 1976-77

They assert continuous possession and cultivation for over 50 years

In 2021-22, the Chhattisgarh Housing Board (Respondent No. 7) applied for the allotment of the same land to develop the ‘Rajiv Nagar Awas’ project

The petitioners filed objections before the Collector, Durg, requesting the restoration of their names in revenue records; however, the Collector rejected their application on 01.12.2025, stating that the original Pattas were cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in 1979

The petitioners appealed this decision to the Commissioner, Durg Division, and moved an application for an interim stay of the Collector's order

The Commissioner rejected the stay application via an order dated 15.01.2026

The petitioners challenged this rejection before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Commissioner, Durg Division, erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for a stay of the Collector’s order pending the final disposal of the statutory appeal

2. Whether the Collector's reliance on a 1979 cancellation order was legally sustainable without verifying if the cancellation followed due process and natural justice

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the judicial review of administrative actions

It applied the principle that administrative and quasi-judicial authorities must pass "speaking orders" (reasoned orders) and must not reject applications outright without proper consideration of material facts, such as long-term possession

Furthermore, the court emphasized the requirement of providing a "due opportunity of hearing" in accordance with law before the cancellation of land rights/Pattas

The High Court observed that while the Collector’s order cited a 1979 SDO order cancelling the petitioners’ Pattas, the record was silent on whether that cancellation occurred after providing the ancestors of the petitioners a fair hearing or what the legal justification for such cancellation was

The Court noted that the Collector appeared to have passed the order without examining the original records of the 1978-79 revenue case

Regarding the Commissioner's conduct, the Court found that the rejection of the stay application was a "non-speaking" act that failed to consider the petitioners' status as potentially landless persons in long-term possession

The Court reasoned that a "liberal view" should have been taken given the length of possession (50 years), and the failure to provide reasons rendered the impugned order unsustainable

The Court held that the effect and operation of the Collector’s order dated 01.12.2025 shall remain stayed until the final disposal of the appeal pending before the Commissioner

Additionally, the Court directed the Commissioner to decide the pending appeal on its merits within 90 days of receiving the court order, after affording all parties a due opportunity to be heard