Prior permission under Section 165, Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, is mandatory for alienating government leasehold lands.

The petitioner’s father (Respondent No. 6) was granted a government patta (leasehold) for 42.70 sq. meters of land in Village Simga under a specific government scheme in 2018

The petitioner alleges that despite the land being government property intended for family subsistence, Respondent No. 6 illegally sold the land to Respondent No. 7 via a registered sale deed dated 02.01.2026 without obtaining mandatory prior permission from revenue authorities

The petitioner claimed Respondent No. 6 already possessed alternative land for rehabilitation

Having received no response to his representations dated 20.01.2026, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for the authorities to secure the government land and decide his objections

1. Whether the petitioner, as a complainant rather than a direct party to the transaction, has the locus standi to maintain the writ petition

2. Whether the alienation of the government patta land by Respondent No. 6 in favour of Respondent No. 7 was in violation of the statutory requirements of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code

Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which governs the transfer of land interests and imposes restrictions on the alienation of land granted by the State Government, often requiring prior approval from a competent authority to ensure the validity of such transactions

The principle of Locus Standi in writ jurisdiction, specifically regarding the rights of a third-party complainant to invoke the court’s intervention in administrative lapses

The Court observed that the petitioner’s primary grievance was the unauthorized sale of government-granted land, which is restricted under Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code

While the Court noted that the petitioner, acting as a mere complainant, might lack the requisite locus standi to formally maintain the proceedings as a direct aggrieved party, it emphasized the gravity of the legal allegation regarding the absence of prior official permission for the sale

Consequently, the Court determined that the matter required administrative scrutiny to uphold the statutory provisions of the Land Revenue Code, regardless of the petitioner’s standing, to protect the Government's interest in the land

The Court ordered the authorities to pass a reasoned and appropriate order in accordance with the law after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the seller (Respondent No. 6) and the purchaser (Respondent No. 7)