Luvkumar Sharma, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Pamgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Tehsildar Pamgarh, District Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Malti Sharma W/o Kush Kumar Sharma, Aged About 50 Years R/o L I G -

¶14

29, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Rohitashav Singh, Deputy Government Advocate For Res. No. 5 : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

05/01/2026

¶20

Following relief(s) has been claimed by the petitioner:

¶21

“1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a

¶22

2

¶23

writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order dated 19.07.2023, passed by the Board of Revenue Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No. RN/06/R/A-6/53/2023 village Nandeli, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa and the order of the Commissioner dated 03.03.2023 may kindly be upheld, in the interest of justice.

¶24

That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in dispute in the present writ petition is comprised in a piece of land bearing Khasra Nos.158/13, 158/14 and 158/18, having Rakba of 1.319, 0.445 and 0.291 hectares respectively with a total Rakba of 2.055 hectares situated at village Nandeli, Tahshil-Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa. He further submits that the said property was initially recorded in the name of Durga Prasad Sharma in the revenue record at the strength of Will executed by Late Durga Prasad Sharma in favour of respondent No. 5, who has filed an application under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue, 1959 before the Tahshildar, Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa and Respondent No.4, Tahshildar, Pamgarh, vide its order dated 30.09.2008, allowed the said application and his name was recorded in the revenue record. He further submits that challenging the same the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pamgarh District- Jangir-Champa, who, vide its order dated 08.08.2022, has rejected the same holding that Writ Petition No.2146 of 2022 filed by respondent No. 5 against the proceedings of mutation before the Tahshildar is pending consideration before the High Court. He further submits that the concerned SDO found that since the litigation in the said Writ Petition is pending before this Court, therefore, further proceedings in

¶26

3

¶27

the application may not be necessary but challenging the same, the Petitioner herein has preferred a Second Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, which was allowed vide order dated 03.03.2023 against which, respondent No. 5 has filed a Revision Petition before the Revenue Board, Bilaspur which, by the impugned order dated 19.07.2023, was allowed by holding that the the litigation in respect of suit property is pending before this Court in the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 5 was dismissed for noncompliance of the order passed by this Court and the impugned order was passed by the Board of Revenue solely on the ground that since the Writ Petition was pending before this Court, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner could not be sustained, however, as the said Writ Petition has since been dismissed for non-compliance and has not been restored to its original number till date, the impugned order cannot withstand judicial scrutiny of this Court and is therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶28

Mr. Rohitashva Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No. 5.

¶29

Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that as the writ petition has been dismissed, this Court may set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the matter may be remanded back to the Board of Revenue for decision making on its own merits.

¶30

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby set aside and Revision Case No. RN/06/R/A-6/53/2023 is restored to its original number. It is expected that the Board of Revenue shall decide the original petition filed by Respondent No. 5 in accordance with law expeditiously. Parties are directed to

¶31

4

¶32

appear before the Board of Revenue on 19^th of February, 2026.

¶33