Robert Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondents-State	: Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 6	: Mr. Shakti RajSinha, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

ORDER ON BOARD

¶19

11/11/2025

¶20

This writ petition is filed questioning the legality and sustainability of the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, whereby the revision application filed by petitioner came to be dismissed affirming the order of Commissioner, Surguja Division Surguja.

¶21

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Respondent No. 6 herein has

¶22

2 / 4

¶23

filed an application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “Code, 1959”) before Respondent No. 5/ Tahsildar. Application was registered and while hearing the application for grant of interim relief filed under Section 32 of the Code 1959, interim order was passed restraining the petitioner not to construct wall over the land, subject matter of the dispute. The order put to challenge before Respondent No. 4/ Collector and the Collector upon hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 is not maintainable and accordingly has set aside the order dated 30.09.2016. In a revision preferred before Respondent No. 3/ Commissioner, the Commissioner without considering the facts and circumstances of the case has allowed the revision filed by Respondent No. 6 and directed for deciding the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The revision filed before the revisional court by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by impugned order.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that father of petitioner has purchased the land vide unregistered agreement and came in possession, therefore, petitioner is having right and title on the land, subject matter of the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959. This aspect was not considered by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in appropriate manner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the private respondent would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the Commissioner has rightly concluded that the petitioner could not get any right or title over the property in dispute from unregistered document and therefore it is apparent that the petitioner is in possession of the land owned by father of Respondent No. 6. he also contended that after passing of the order by the Collector, the Tahsildar has stayed the proceedings in an application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959. In the proceedings before the Tahsildar, petitioner would get

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

the opportunity to make his defense by submitting oral and documentary evidence and therefore the writ petition itself be disposed of reserving liberty with the petitioner to raise all the grounds as raised in this writ petition in a writ petition claiming his right over the property, subject matter of dispute under Section 250 of the Code, 1959.

¶28

Learned State counsel would submit that the writ petition itself is pre-mature as it is against the impugned order.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶30

Undisputedly, the proceedings pending before the Tahsildar on application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 with prayer for reinstatement of recorded bhumiswami . The claim of petitioner herein is that the petitioner has got the right and title to possess the land as the father of petitioner has purchased the land by way of unregistered document (unregistered agreement) from late Ramdin.

¶31

In the aforementioned facts of the case when the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 itself is pending, I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the case otherwise it may prejudice the rights of the parties to be decided by the Tahsildar in the appropriate proceedings pending under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 and therefore this writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioner to raise all the grounds as raised in this writ petition before the competent authority dealing with the provision of Section 250 of the Code, 1959 and to submit acceptable/ admissible evidence, documentary and oral, for consideration of the concerned authority. It is also further directed that the Tahsildar shall conclude the proceedings following due process of law expeditiously granting opportunity of hearing and lead evidence to both the sides, preferably within a further period of 06 months from the date of receipt of order.

¶32

Parties are directed to appear before Respondent No. 5/ Tahsildar on 02.12.2025.

¶33

4 / 4

¶34

Till the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 is decided, parties are directed not to change the nature of land and they shall maintain the status quo as it exists today till the decision of the Tahsildar on the application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959.

¶35

With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Certified copy as per rules.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶39

pwn

Robert Lakda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robert Lakda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fareeduddin Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prateek Nagesh Jayant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdayal Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Singhania Vs Union of India

Ajay Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Das Mahant, Vs State of Chhattisgarh