Sanction for review under Section 51 requires prior hearing of all concerned parties.

The petitioner challenged the Collector, Mandla’s order dated 29 September 2015, by which sanction was granted under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, for initiation of review proceedings.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nainpur had forwarded the matter to the Collector for sanction by order dated 27 August 2015.

The petitioner contended that the Collector granted sanction mechanically and without issuing notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing.

Upon examination of the record, the High Court found that the Collector had not issued notice to the petitioner or other concerned parties before granting sanction.

Whether the Collector, while granting sanction under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for initiation of review proceedings, was required to provide notice and an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties

Whether the Collector’s order dated 29 September 2015, passed without such hearing and without adequate application of mind, was legally sustainable

Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 requires the competent sanctioning authority to apply its mind before permitting review proceedings.

The exercise of granting sanction is not purely mechanical and must comply with the principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, where the sanction may affect the parties’ legal interests.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Biharilal v. State of M.P. and Others, (2010) 2 MPHJ 115, which establishes that an opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the concerned parties before sanction for review is granted under Section 51.

The Collector’s order was passed after the matter was referred by the Sub-Divisional Officer, but the record disclosed that no notice was issued to the petitioner or any other concerned party.

Although the State characterized the sanction as merely administrative and preliminary, the Court held that the statutory exercise under Section 51 required due application of mind and adherence to natural justice.

Since the Collector granted sanction without hearing the affected parties, the order was considered mechanical and high-handed, and therefore contrary to the rule stated in Biharilal.

The matter was remitted to the Collector, Mandla, with directions to provide an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including the petitioner and the private respondent, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within 90 days from production of the certified copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.