Gyarsibai And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Pranay Verma, J

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Additional Collector, District Neemuch, whereby permission has been granted by him to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Javad, District Neemuch to take up the order dated 10.09.2025 in review.

An application for mutation preferred by respondents 8 and 9 was rejected by the Tehsildar which order was maintained in appeal by order dated 10.09.2025 by the Sub Divisional Officer. The matter was forwarded by the Sub Divisional Officer to the Additional Collector seeking sanction for review by order dated 25.02.2026. Thereafter the Additional Collector examined the case and granted permission to the Sub Divisional Officer to take up the order dated 10.09.2025 in review.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a singular contention to the effect that prior to granting sanction for review, the petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing as was mandatorily required to be afforded to them under Section 51 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Since no such opportunity has been granted to them, the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and has been passed behind their back and is illegal. Reliance has been placed by him inter alia on the decision of this Court in Siddharth Dev Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2019 (1) MPLJ 175.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that since the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer earlier was erroneous, the same has rightly been taken up in review. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners for the present since they would be granted an opportunity by the Sub Divisional Officer in the review proceedings hence there is no need to interfere in the matter. However, the fact that prior to granting sanction for review, the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing could not be disputed by him.

This Court has time and again held that if an order is to be taken up in review and sanction for the same has to be granted, then it is imperative for the person in whose favour the same was passed to be afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to granting such review. Without the same, no such sanction can be granted. In the case of Siddharth Dev Singh (Supra), it has been held by this Court as under:

"13. In the present case, even before taking prior sanction from the higher authority, respondent No. 2 has not issued any notice to the petitioner which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaheed Anwar (supra). Thus, while exercising the powers under section 51 of MPLRC, the authorities are required to issue notice or give opportunity of hearing to the person concerned i.e. at the time of obtaining the sanction for exercising the power of review before passing an order of review.

*****

No order shall be reviewed except on the ground provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1906 (V of 1908). Now, in the instant case, it was not contended on behalf of the petitioners that the finality attained by the order of confirmation passed by the Collector under section 210 of the Code was not subject to any review. Assuming, therefore, that the Collector had the power to review the order of confirmation, there can be no manner of doubt that that power could be exercised by the Collector only in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the Code. In the instant case, the Collector is not shown to have passed any order of review disclosing the reasons for reviewing the earlier order. It is, therefore, not possible to ascertain as to whether the decision to review the earlier order of confirmation was founded on grounds specified in 0.47 RI, Civil Procedure Code, as provided by sub¬section (2) of section 51 of the Code. Further, no notice was admittedly given to the petitioners before the earlier order of confirmation passed by the Collector on 22nd October, 1969 was sought to be varied. The petitioners were affected by the review of that order and were undoubtedly interested in supporting that order. In these circumstances, the decision taken by the Collector to review the earlier order, without giving notice to the petitioners, contravened the provisions of section 51(i-a) of the Code and the principles of natural justice.

*****

In the present case also no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners by the Additional Collector while passing the order dated 02.03.2026 granting sanction to the Sub Divisional Officer to take up the order dated 10.09.2025 in review. The said order is hence in gross violation of principles of natural justice hence cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Additional Collector is hereby quashed. However, he shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law.

The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.