Order Obtained by Suppressing Prior Adjudication and Lacking Statutory Jurisdiction is Legally Non Est and Void

The Petitioners, owners of land bearing Khasra No. 206 in Sakti, challenged an order dated 04.05.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division

Previously, Respondent No. 5 had initiated proceedings under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (CLRC) regarding adjoining Khasra No. 205. This led to a final adjudication by competent authorities on 09.09.2015 and 18.01.2017, followed by an order from the Additional Collector on 26.03.2018 correcting the revenue records

The Petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 5 suppressed these prior adjudications to obtain a fresh, conflicting order from the Commissioner, who allegedly lacked jurisdiction

1. Whether the impugned order dated 04.05.2020 was vitiated by the suppression of material facts regarding prior adjudications

2. Whether the Respondent No. 2 (Commissioner) possessed the legal jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code in the manner exercised

The court primarily applied the principles governing the finality of administrative adjudication and the duty of disclosure under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, specifically Section 107 regarding the preparation and maintenance of field maps

The court relied on the doctrine of coram non-judice, implying that an order passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction—or one obtained through the suppression of material facts (suggestio falsi, suppressio veri)—is non est and void in the eyes of law

The Court found that the dispute regarding the correction of the revenue map and records had already been conclusively decided by the competent authority in 2015 and 2017

These orders had attained finality, and a correction had already been executed by the Additional Collector on 26.03.2018

The Respondent No. 5 failed to disclose these prior proceedings before the Commissioner

The Court reasoned that the Commissioner’s order was legally unsustainable because it ignored the existing finality of the earlier revenue proceedings and because the Commissioner lacked the specific competency to exercise jurisdiction under Section 107 CLRC in the manner presented by the facts of this case

The High Court quashed the order dated 04.05.2020 passed by Respondent No. 2. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs