1 - Trilochan Singh Sahu S/o Late Komal Singh Sahu Aged About 68 Years v. 1 - Itwari Ram Sahu S/o Late Budhram Sahu Aged About 70 Years Caste
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:29752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3373 of 2025 1 - Trilochan Singh Sahu S/o Late Komal Singh Sahu Aged About 68 Years Caste Teli R/o Village Pachpedi, Kastkar, Nipani , Tehsil Patan District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Itwari Ram Sahu S/o Late Budhram Sahu Aged About 70 Years Caste Teli R/o Village Nipani Tehsil Patan District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Board Of Revenue Through The Secretary, Board Of Revenue, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Division Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Patan District - Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Nayab Tehsildar Jaamgaon (R) Patan District - Durg Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02/07/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (i)That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order 12.02.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No. RN/05/R/A- 5/324/2024 arising out of order dated 08.09.2023 SDO(R ), Patan and order dated 26.09.2024 passed by Commissioner Durg. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner namely, Komal Singh Sahu during the life time has purchased the agricultural land being Khasra No. 186 area 3.25 acres in the year 1945-1946 from Ramtuta, Wd/o Shobharam Heraman D/o Vishwanath Puranik, S/o Bisnath Konda S/o Rangi and thereafter they were in possession of the said land. During the re-settlement proceedings, as per new Khasra No. 664 admeasuring 1.15 hectares was registered in the revenue records i.e. 0.153 hectares (0.3 decimal). Thereafter for correction of the same, the present petitioner preferred an application before the Naib Tehsildar, Jamgaon under Section 250 of CG LRC which was registered as Revenue case No. 202106101700020A/68 year 2020- 21 dated 05.04.2023. In order to verify the records, the learned Naib Tehsildar, Jamgaon directed the Revenue Inspector submitted an inspection report after giving notice to the agriculturists having land touching the four corners of the above mentioned subject land. Considering the application submitted by the petitioner and the records before the settlement and after settlement and as per prevailing possession of the land by the petitioner as well as the agriculturists having the land adjacent to 04 corners of the subject land submitted its report and it was found that 0.10 hectares of land after re-settlement between the parties has merged with Khasra No. 663 belonging to Itwari Ram, S/o. Budhram upon which, the ancestors of the petitioner's having possession for land of about 45- 47 years. 3. Thereafter, considering the said report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the learned Naib Tehsildar vide its order dated 05.04.2023 has allowed the application under Section 89 of the Code, 1959 for correction of records and directed the Revenue Inspector to correct the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Teshildar, Jamgaon dated 05.04.2023, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) and the same was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 202306100600005-A/5 A/2022-2023 dated 08.09.2023 and 3 whereby, the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) without considering the inspection report submitted by the Revenue Inspector on 29.04.2022 and incorrectly holding that the said report is inconclusive had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set-aside the order dated 05.04.2023. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub- Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) had preferred a second appeal under Section 44 (D) of the Code, 1959 before the learned Commissioner, Durg Division which was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 934/A- 5/2022-2023 e-Court No. 202309980100052 and the learned Commissioner without considering the revenue records prior to re- settlement and after re-settlement only on the basis of demarcation proceedings initiated under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 as such, on the behest of respondents on the basis of revenue entries subsequent to the re-settlement proceedings had dismissed the second appeal of the petitioner on 26.09.2024. It is apt to mention here that preliminary proceeding under Section 89 of the Code, 1959, the respondents have filed an application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 before the learned Tehsildar, Jamgaon for eviction of the petitioner out from the land bearing Khasra No. 663 rakba 0.10 hectares in 0.05 hectares which was registered as Revenue Case No. 20220210170019-A-70/2021-22 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2023 against which, the respondents have preferred an appeal before the learned Sub- Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) under Section 41 of the Code, 1959 which was partly allowed by the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) and the matter was remanded back to the learned Tehsildar in light of the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) setting-aside the order passed by the learned Naib Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 89 of the Code, 1959 against which, the petitioner had filed a second appeal before the learned Commissioner, Durg Division under Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959. 5. Learned counsel further submits that being aggrieved with the order dated 26.09.2024, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 4 Board of Revenue which was registered on 22.01.2024 and the revision was heard on 21.01.2025 and the same was dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.02.2025 without calling the records of the learned Courts below. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of keeping the present writ petition pending, I find it appropriate to dismiss the petition of the petitioner as no ground is made out by the petitioner which warrants interference because the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. 9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy available to him under law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.10 10:32:20 +0530