(WPC No.226/2020) 2026:CGHC:23288 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 226 of 2020 Smt. Umadevi Agrawal, W/o Shri Shankar Lal Agrawal, aged about 50 years, R/o Darri Road, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 15/05/2026 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the order of the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 23-10-2019 passed in Case No.R.N./10/R/A-2/142/ SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.05.15 19:23:31 +0530 (WPC No.226/2020) 2018, whereby the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision affirming the order dated 3-12-2015 passed by the Collector revoking the order of diversion issued in favour of the petitioner with regard to the subject land. 2. The petitioner made application for diversion of her land on 1-10- 2015 and thereafter, the said land was notified on 30-11-2015 under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 for acquisition, however, thereafter, ignoring that notification dated 30-11-2015, the order of diversion was passed in favour of the petitioner on 31-3-2016, which on being noticed, the Collector has reviewed that order finding that the subject land has already been notified by the Railways for acquisition against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur which was dismissed against which she preferred revision before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed leading to filing of this writ petition. 3. Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the learned Board of Revenue and the Collector both are absolutely unjustified in revoking the order of diversion, as the application for diversion was already made on 1-10- 2015 much prior to 30-11-2015, the date on which the land was notified for acquisition under Section 20A of the Railway Act, 1989, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the Collector are liable to be set aside. (WPC No.226/2020) 4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would submit that Rule 14 of the rules framed under Section 172 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘the Code’) known as the Chhattisgarh Diversion of Land Rules, 1962 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1962’), clearly bars that once the land is notified for acquisition, no diversion is permissible, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 172 of the Code provides for diversion of land. Further, the Rules of 1962 have been framed in exercise of rule making power of which Rule 14(1) & (2) provides as under: - “14. Land for which diversion not to be permitted.-No permission shall be granted for diversion of the— (1) land which is under acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894); (2) Land falling within the boundary limits of any Railway Line, National Highways, State Highway or any other road maintained by the Central or State Government or any local authority as specified in any Act or Rules of the Central or State Government made in this behalf, or within the limit specified in the guidelines of the Indian Road Congress for establishment of industry from the middle point of National Highway/State/Highway/Major District Road/Other District Road/Rural Roads, whichever is longer;” 7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that in respect of the land which is under acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no permission shall be granted for diversion of the said land and the land falling within the boundary limits of any (WPC No.226/2020) Railway Line, National Highways, State Highways are also prohibited and no permission can be granted for diversion. Here, in the present, the subject land is notified for acquisition of Railways under the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 14, drawing analogy that the land is under acquisition under the Railways Act, 1989, no permission can be granted for diversion of the subject land. Accordingly, the Collector has rightly revoked the permission already granted ignoring the notification dated 30-11-2015 published under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989 which has rightly been revoked and which the Board of Revenue has rejected the revision. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma