1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 710 of 2015 1 - Rajendra Jaiswal S/o Shri Narayan Jaiswal, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Juna Lakhanpur, Tehsil And P.S. Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Sarguja District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Deleted (Kailash Agrawal), (Died) Hon’ble Court Order Dated 14/09/2023. 2.1 - Suresh Kumari Agrawal, W/o Late Kailash Agrawal R/o Village Juna Lakhanpur, Tehsil And P.S. Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2.2 - Avinash Agrawal S/o Late Late Kailash Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Juna Lakhanpur, Tehsil And P.S. Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2.3 - Vikas Agrawal, S/o Late Kailash Agrawal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Juna Lakhanpur, Tehsil And P.S. Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2.4 - Vishal Agrawal, S/o Late Kailash Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Juna Lakhanpur, Tehsil And P.S. Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2.5 - Ashish Agrawal, S/o Late Kailash Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Juna Lakhanpur, Tehsil And P.S. Lakhanpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent / State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For other Respondents : None ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 06/01/2026 Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 24/07/2015 passed by the Board of Revenue in case No.R.W.16/R/A-19/119/2014, District-Surguja. By the impugned order, a review application against order dated 25/09/2014 (Annexure P/11) filed by Kailash Agrawal (since deceased) was admitted for hearing and deceased respondent No.2 sought to review order dated 11/02/2014 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.R.N./R/A-19/16/467/2012 Village-Juna Lakhanpur Tahsil–Ambikapur, District – Surguja (CG). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property in this writ petition is comprised in piece of Khasra No.48 area 0.040 hectare land situated at village-Juna Lakhanpur, Tahsil–Ambikapur, District–Surguja, CG which was allotted to the petitioner on lease/patta by the order of Nayab Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District–Ambikapur in revenue case No.29/A-19(4)/1983-84 dated 29/03/1984. The said allotment of lease/patta was objected by the deceased- respondent No.2. Upon which, the Collector, Surguja registered a suo motu case bearing revenue case No.9/A-19/2011-12 and vide order dated 21/06/2012 (Annexure P/5), canceled the lease/patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the code of 1959’) before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur (CG). Learned Commissioner, vide its order dated 10/09/2012 in revenue appeal case No.198/A-19/2011-12, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. This order was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in revision under Section 51 of the Code of 1959 before the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 11/02/2014, the revision of the petitioner was allowed and orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were set aside. Thereafter, the deceased-respondent No.2 moved an application for review of the said order before the Board of Revenue. Vide impugned order, the review filed by the deceased-respondent No.2 under Section 51 of the Code of 1959 was admitted 3 for hearing and the learned Board of Revenue rejected the application under Section 32 of the Code of 1959 vide impugned order which is under challenge before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Collector registered a suo motu case for cancellation of lease/patta in favour of the petitioner and canceled the lease/patta in favour of the petitioners which was challenged by the petitioners unsuccessfully upto the Commissioner. However, the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition of the petitioner vide order dated 11/02/2014. The deceased-respondent No.2 and now his legal representatives have no locus standi to file the review petition, hence, they are not aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue as the dispute is between the petitioner and the State Government. He submits that if the State Government is aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, it could have assailed the same in accordance with law. Thus, the order of the Board of Revenue admitting the review petition at the strength of deceased-respondent No.2 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the learned Board of Revenue has only rejected the application filed by the petitioner in the review petition under Section 32 of the Code of 1959. It is an interlocutory order and the petitioner has all the liberty to agitate the merits of the review petition. Apart from this, he submits that deceased-respondent No.2 was an interested person as on his complaint, a suo motu case was registered by the Collector with respect to cancellation of lease deed/patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Board of Revenue in passing the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that initially, a lease deed/ patta was granted in favour of the petitioner mentioned herein above. It is also not in dispute that an objection/complaint was made by deceased-respondent No.2 which prompted the Collector to initiate the suo motu proceedings which culminated into passing of order dated 21/06/2012 by the Collector and canceling the lease deed/patta granted in favour of the petitioner which was challenged unsuccesfully before the Commissioner, however, learned Board of Revenue vide its order dated 11/02/2014 allowed the revision petition of the petitioner and thus set aside the 4 order of the Collector and the Commissioner. It appears that an application for review of the order of Board of Revenue was filed by deceased-respondent No.2 which initially was registered and admitted for hearing. It appears that later on, an application under Section 32 of the Code of 1959 was filed by the petitioner to say that the review petition at the strength of private respondent No.2 cannot be entertained. Perusal of the impugned order would clearly indicate that the learned Board of Revenue has stated that once the review petition has already been admitted, thus, at the strength of application under Section 32 of the Code of 1959, the same cannot be dismissed. The petitioner has all the remedy to agitate before the Board of Revenue with regard to merits of the case and to argue that there is no error apparent on record. 7. So far as the submission of Shri Shukla is concerned that the deceased- respondent No.2 has local standi, does not appeal to the Court because the complaint was made by deceased-respondent No.2.Thus, taking into consideration the entire facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate the merits of review petition before the Board of Revenue who is expected to decide the same in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order considering the fact that the review petition was filed in the year 2015. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.01.07 17:12:19 +0530