Hemprakash Sahu v. Venkatraman Raju

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4481 of 2025 Hemprakash Sahu S/o Rohit Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Street No. 7, Model Town, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Venkatraman Raju S/o C.H. Chandaiyya R/o E-1870 C.G. Housing Board Colony Kohka, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through President Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Link Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/08/2025

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he wants to with the instant writ petition with liberty to file duly constituted petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2

Learned State counsel has no objection on the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.560 of 2022 (Girdhari vs. Bhondu @ Barati & Ors.). Para – 21 of the said judgment is held as under :

21. Returning to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition preferred by the appellant herein in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code against which the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As discussed herein-above, it is quite vivid that the Board of Revenue has been conferred with the status of Court by virtue of Section 31 of the Code and furthermore, the Board of Revenue has also been conferred with the inherent jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Code which is akin to Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code which is a power conferred upon the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, against the order of Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction only and only a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable and the decision relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the matter of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (supra) in which learned Single Judge has held that Board of Revenue is not a Civil Court, it is a revenue authority established under the Code, cannot be held to be laying down good and correct law in view of the discussion made herein and in view of Sections 31 and 32 of the Code which confer status of a Court upon the Board of Revenue. In that view of the matter, the writ petition preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 4 against the revisional 3 order of Board of Revenue was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, by virtue of proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006, writ appeal is expressly barred.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the judgment passed in Girdhari (supra), the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the counsel for the petitioner after retaining the photocopy of the same. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant