Dilip Singh Sisodiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

: Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/03/2026

1. Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shirwas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent/State.

2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 4

06.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C). No. 6705/2025 (Dilip Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant’s ancestral land was wrongly calculated in a ceiling proceeding where only 21.90 acres was declared surplus, but 30.43 acres was vested in the Government. The appellant’s father made several representations to the Collector, Janjgir-Champa in 2000 and 2002, but no action was taken, compelling him to file W.P. No. 151/2003 before the High Court, which on 23.04.2013 directed the authorities to consider the representation. Pursuant to this direction, the Collector, Janjgir passed an order on 14.05.2018 directing return of 8.53 acres of excess land (Khasra Nos. 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, 75/7, 75/8, 76/9, 75/10, 75/11, 75/12) to the appellant. The said order was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No. 152A-6/2018-19, which was dismissed on 05.06.2023, and the subsequent revision before the Board of Revenue was also rejected on 05.07.2023, affirming the Collector’s order. However, the Tahsildar failed to implement the order, forcing the appellant to file W.P.(C) No. 4027/2024, wherein the High Court on

30.08.2024 directed completion of the pending proceedings within six months. Thereafter, the Tahsildar passed an order on

11.11.2024 partially complying with the directions by recording 5 most of the lands in the appellant’s name except Khasra No. 75/11 without assigning proper reasons. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 06 to 09 sought mutation of their names without notice or hearing to the appellant, prompting the appellant to file W.P.(C) No. 6705/2025. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 06.01.2026, disposed of the petition on the basis of a statement made by the concerned Tahsildar that all the entries have been incorporated in the revenue records except one entry which is government lease property and for that a civil suit is pending.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the material facts and the binding orders passed by the competent authorities and the Hon’ble High Court. The dispute arose due to a clear miscalculation in the ceiling proceedings where only 21.90 acres of the appellant’s ancestral land was declared surplus, whereas

30.43 acres was wrongly vested in the Government. After repeated representations by the appellant’s father, the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 151/2003 by order dated 23.04.2013 directed the authorities to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, Janjgir-Champa, after issuing notice and hearing all concerned parties, passed a reasoned order dated 14.05.2018 directing return of 8.53 acres of excess land (Khasara Nos. 75/4, 75/5, 75/6, 75/7, 75/8, 76/9, 75/10, 75/11, 75/12) to the 6 appellant. The said order was subsequently affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and further directions were issued by the Hon’ble High Court on 30.08.2024 to conclude the proceedings. However, respondent No.3 only partially complied with the said orders and failed to restore the entire land, particularly Khasara No. 75/11, and thereafter proceeded to consider the application of respondent Nos. 06 to 09 and record their names in the revenue record without issuing notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Despite these facts, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition solely on the basis of a statement made by the Tahsildar through video conferencing, without examining the earlier binding orders of the Collector and the Hon’ble High Court, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant; hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for full compliance of the Collector’s order dated 14.05.2018 and the High Court’s order dated 30.08.2024.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition as the dispute raised by the appellant involves questions of fact relating to title and possession of land, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The concerned revenue authorities have already 7 taken steps in compliance with the orders of the superior authorities and mutation has been partly carried out in favour of the appellant as per the available records. It was also submitted by the Tahsildar that the land in question is recorded as Government lease land and a civil dispute regarding the same is pending before the competent civil court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that nothing further was required to be adjudicated in the writ petition at that stage, and the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is evident from the impugned order that in pursuance of the direction issued by the Court, Mr. Avinash Chouhan, Tahsildar, Bamhanidih appeared before the learned Single Judge through video conferencing and submitted that necessary entries in the revenue records had already been incorporated in favour of the petitioner except with regard to one entry which, according to the revenue records, pertains to Government lease land and in respect of which a civil suit is stated to be pending before the competent court. Taking note of the said submission and the explanation furnished by the 8 revenue authority, the learned Single Judge observed that the reasons assigned by the concerned authority appeared to be just and proper and therefore no further adjudication was required in the writ petition at that stage.

8. Upon consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition primarily on the basis of the statement made by the Tahsildar with regard to the status of the remaining land and the pendency of a civil suit. In the present writ appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the correctness of the said factual statement and the conclusion drawn therefrom. However, such issues relating to correctness of the statement recorded in the order or clarification of factual aspects are matters which may appropriately be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by way of a review petition, or he may approach to the competent Civil Court to redress his grievances.

9. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would be open to the appellant/petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy available to him under the law, if so advised. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the appellant, the present writ appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok