Orders founded on an omitted statutory provision are invalid and liable to be set aside.

The three writ petitions concerned common questions of fact and law and were therefore decided by a common order.

The 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.

They 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.

The State defended the orders but fairly admitted that Section 237(2) had been omitted before the impugned orders were passed.

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?

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?

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.

The governing principle was that an administrative or quasi-judicial order founded upon a statutory provision that was no longer in force on the date of the decision cannot be treated as having been passed in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside.

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.

Since 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.

However, the Court clarified that quashing the orders would not prevent the competent authority from reconsidering the matter under the applicable statutory framework.

All 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.