Dismissed¶29

Prakash Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2025WPC/255/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; WPC No. 255 of 2020; Prakash Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh; revenue mutation review; SDO(R) Sitapur order 21.03.2016; FIR direction against petitioner; alleged fraudulent registered sale deed; Board of Revenue revision dismissed 23.10.2019 (case no. R.N./16/R/B-121/75/2016); SDO(R) jurisdiction over land title; Gram Panchayat hearing venue objection; Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (CGLRC); writ petition dismissed without costs; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; 04.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the SDO(R), which was affirmed by the Board of Revenue on 23.10.2019, does not warrant interference. ¶29

Prakash Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:16090

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 255 of 2020

¶7

Prakash Agrawal S/o Shankar Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sontarai, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Bhikham Das S/o Thuiya Panika R/o Village Sontarai, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner	:Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent	:

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

04.04.2025

¶19

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

-2-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or writs/ order or orders to quash the impugned order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in case no. R.N./16/R/B-121/75/2016, in the interest of justice.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioners together with cost of the petition. ”

¶24

1. In this case, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), hereinafter referred to as “SDO(R),” initiated proceedings on the basis of a complaint, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner had executed a registered sale deed fraudulently. Consequently, the SDO(R) registered a Revenue Case No. 2012-1359/B121/2012-13 and sought a report from the concerned Tehsildar. Subsequently, permission was granted to review the earlier mutation order, and direction was issued on 21.03.2016 to register an FIR against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide its order dated 23.10.2019, dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the SDO(R).

¶25

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the SDO(R) has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter relating to title over the any land. He would further submit that the there is no provision under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (CGLRC) permitting the revenue officer to conduct revenue

¶26

-3-

¶27

proceedings in Gram Panchayat. He would pray that the orders dated 21.03.2016 and 23.10.2019 are contrary to law and are liable to be quashed.

¶28

1. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submissions of the petitioner and contended that the order of the SDO(R) dated 21.03.2016, having been affirmed by the Board of Revenue on 23.10.2019, does not suffer from any illegality. He also submitted that no interim relief was ever granted in favour of the petitioner, and as such, the proceedings would have been concluded before the SDO(R).

¶29

1. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds that the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the SDO(R), which was affirmed by the Board of Revenue on 23.10.2019, does not warrant interference. Further, more than six years have elapsed; no prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioner merely due to the venue of the hearing being the Panchayat Bhawan. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No cost(s).

¶30

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

NADIM

Prakash Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Secretary C.G.Swatantra Mazd. Vs the C.M.D. Secl and Anr.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Prabha Sahu

Mukesh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Divya Singh Sisodiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Shyam Sundar Agrawal Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Kumar Soni Vs Jitendra Yadav