Disposed

Suneshwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026WPC/4674/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to direct Tahsildar to reconsider application for name mutation and map correction under S. 115 CGLRC. State filed no objection. Court directed SDO and Tahsildar to consider the application and pass reasoned order within 30 days, expressly reserving opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 2 and No. 3 to consider application u/s 115 CGLRC and pass reasoned order within 30 days.

Suneshwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010350852026

2026:CGHC:40293

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 4674 of 2026

¶7

1 - Suneshwar S/o Late Sukhdev Aged About 75 Years R/o Village - Mahadevpur, Tahsil - Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

RAVVAUTTEJKUMARRAJU Digitallysigned byRAVVA UTTEJKUMAR RAJUDate:2026.09.1618:42:31+0530

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan- New Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ramanujganj, Distt.- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Tahsildar - Ramanujganj, Distt - Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, P.L.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

15/09/2026

¶20

The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to consider

¶22

¶23

and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code for correction of map of the subject land dated 10.05.2026 Annexure P/2 within stipulated period. 10.2 Any, other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject land is the ancestral property of the petitioner and his name has already been duly mutated in the revenue records, and the petitioner is in possession thereof; however, on account of an apparent error on the part of the revenue authorities, his name is not reflected in the online revenue records pertaining to the subject land. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted an application before respondent No.3 seeking correction and updation of his name in the online portal, but the said application is pending consideration and no order thereon has been passed till date. He further submits that the subject land has not yet been divided in the revenue records and the revenue map has also not been duly updated on the online portal, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner and adversely affecting his right to effectively enjoy and deal with the property. The continued failure to carry out the necessary correction and updation in the revenue records is resulting in continuing and irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that

¶25

¶26

respondent No. 3/Tahsildar, Ramanujganj (C.G.) may kindly be directed to consider and decide the pending application of the petitioner for correction of his name and for necessary division of the subject land and updation of the revenue map in the online revenue records, in accordance with law, within a stipulated and time-bound period.

¶27

Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection to the limited prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the limited prayer made by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No. 2, the S.D.O. (Revenue), Ramanujganj and respondent No.3/Tahsildar, Ramanujganj (C.G.) to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim.

¶29

With this observations and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶32

Judge

¶33

U.K. Raju

Suneshwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneshwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases