01Facts
The three writ petitions concerned common questions of fact and law and were therefore decided by a common order.
¶ 1The petitioners challenged orders dated 29 June 2020 and 30 June 2020 passed in Revenue Case No. 37-B-121/2018-19, concerning diversion/use of their land for commercial purposes.
¶ 2They contended that the Additional Collector had relied upon Section 237(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, even though that provision had already been omitted with effect from 16 January 2012.
¶ 3–4The State defended the orders but fairly admitted that Section 237(2) had been omitted before the impugned orders were passed.
¶ 402Issues
i.1. Whether the impugned orders dated 29 June 2020 and 30 June 2020, passed primarily on the basis of Section 237(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, were legally sustainable when that provision had already been omitted with effect from 16 January 2012?
¶ 3–6ii.2. Whether, after setting aside the impugned orders, the competent authority could reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable on the relevant date?
¶ 703Law Applied
The Court applied the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, particularly Section 237(2), while noting that the provision had been omitted with effect from 16 January 2012.
¶ 4, 6The governing principle was that an administrative or quasi-judicial order founded upon a statutory provision that was no longer in force on the date of the decision cannot be treated as having been passed in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside.
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 1
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 Section 237
04Reasoning
The Court found that the impugned orders were passed primarily by relying on Section 237(2), despite the admitted fact that the provision had ceased to operate from 16 January 2012.
¶ 6Since the orders dated 29 June 2020 and 30 June 2020 were made several years after the omission of that provision, the authorities failed to apply the law in force on the relevant date. An order based on an omitted statutory provision was therefore legally unsustainable and could not be allowed to stand.
¶ 6However, the Court clarified that quashing the orders would not prevent the competent authority from reconsidering the matter under the applicable statutory framework.
¶ 705Holding
The Court answered the first issue in favour of the petitioners and set aside the impugned orders dated 29 June 2020 and 30 June 2020.
¶ 7All three writ petitions were accordingly allowed. The competent authority was granted liberty to proceed afresh and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with the provisions of law applicable on the relevant date, after considering all relevant facts and statutory provisions.
¶ 7Original Court PDF
A.K.INFRADEAL PVT. LTDvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
