Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:12647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1338 of 2025 1 - Ramadhar Sahu S/o Shri Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 15 Bhatapara Village Kolar Tahsil Abhanpur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Lila Ram Sahu S/o Shri Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 15 Bhatapara Village Kolar Tahsil Abhanpur District - Raipur (C.G.) versus --- Petitioner(s) 1 - Rajesh Dani S/o Late Bala Saheb Dani R/o Dani Bada Budapara At Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secertary Department Of Revenue Chahttisgarh Government Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil Abhanpur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur 6 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh (Circuit Court Raipur), Having Principal Seat At Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Halka Patwari Village Kolar Tahsil Abhanpur District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1345 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
1 - Aatma Ram Sahu S/o Shri Nandu Ram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Mahavir Chowk, Village- Kolar, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - Rajesh Dani S/o Late Bala Saheb Dani, R/o Dani Bada Budapara At- Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Government Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur, District Raipur 5 - Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur 6 - Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh (Circuit Court Raipur) Having Principal Seat At Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Halka Patwari Village- Kolar, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1350 of 2025 1 - Kashi Ram Sahu S/o Shri Mahttar Ram Aged About 71 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Bazar Chowk, Village- Kolar, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - Rajesh Dani S/o Late Bala Saheb Dani, R/o Dani Bada Budapara At-Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Government Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur,, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh (Circuit Court Raipur) Having Principal Seat At Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Halka Patwari Village- Kolar, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1359 of 2025 1 - Devlal Patel S/o Late Shri Chatur Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o Patel Para, Near Hanuman Mandir Village- Kolar, Tahsil - Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Rajesh Dani S/o Late Bala Saheb Dani, R/o Dani Bada Budapara At- Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Government Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur, District Raipur 5 - Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur 6 - Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh (Circuit Court Raipur) Having Principal Seat At Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 7 - Halka Patwari Village- Kolar, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) WPC No. 1361 of 2025 --- Respondent(s) 1 - Santosh Sahu S/o Shri Beniram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Jagriti Chowk, Village- Kolar, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - Rajesh Dani S/o Late Bala Saheb Dani R/o Dani Bada Budapara At-Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Government Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh (Circuit Court Raipur) Having Principal Seat At Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Halka Patwari Village- Kolar, Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Rakesh Dubey, Advocate For State :- Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 1 :- Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate (on caveat) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 17.03.2025 1. This bunch of writ petitions is being heard together and being disposed of by this common order as issue involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same and common question has been raised by petitioners. In order to decide all these writ petitions, W.P.C. No. 1338 of 2025 is being considered as master case and all these writ petitions are being decided on the basis of pleadings made in this writ petition. 4 2. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking following reliefs :- “10.a. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to pass an order, issue a direction or necessary command by way of writ of certiorari, set aside and quash the impugned order dated 3/12/2024 passed by the respondent no. 6 authority .i.e.( P/1) only up to the extent by which stay application has been rejected and further be please to stay the effect and operation of order dated 14.10.2024 (P/7) passed by Court of Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur, in Revenue Appeal Case No.- 202310970100029/29-1/6 year 2023-24 during Pendency of Revision Petition before Respondent no.6 10.b. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to pass any other or further order(s) deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances in the matter.” 3. In all these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 by which, Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Circuit Court Raipur), has dismissed the application for grant of interim relief while hearing Revision Case No. RN / 14 / R. A-6 / 299 / 2024 filed against Order No. 29 / A-6 / 2023 – 24 passed Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur vide Order dated 14.10.2024. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Board of Revenue has admitted the revision filed by petitioners, but even after admission of revision, interim application for grant of stay has been rejected, as such, these writ petitions have been filed challenging the aforesaid order. When the revision is admitted for hearing, the Board of Revenue ought to have passed interim stay order in favour of petitioners and should not have rejected interim application for grant of stay. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing on advance copy 5 would submit that only interim application has been rejected and the matter has been admitted for hearing, therefore, petitioners are having fair opportunity to argue the case on merits. Even otherwise also, order of mutation is under challenge, as such, it will not make any difference. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 / caveator supports the order passed by the Board of Revenue and submits that after due consideration, revision was admitted for hearing and interim application was rejected which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 8. Perusal of Order No. 29 / A-6 / 2023 – 24 passed Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur vide Order dated 14.10.2024 would show that the Commissioner has considered entire aspect of the matter and has held that transaction itself seems to be void ab initio and that too is in violation of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956, as such dismissal of interim application, which is discretion of the Court, cannot be said to be followed. There is a limited scope while dealing with revision and order of stay cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Petitioners can very well argue their case on merits.
Decision
9. In view of the above, I do not find present to be a fit case to pass orders while interfering and setting aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these writ petitions, however, since the Court has already delved into the merits of the case, I am of the opinion to pass orders on merits and accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. 6 11. The Board of Revenue is directed to decide the revision on its own merits expeditiously, in accordance with law. 12. With this observation and directions, these writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI Shayna