1 2025:CGHC:3359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1013 of 2019 1 - Jagdish Bansal S/o Shri Ramphal Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No.11 Sakti, Police Station- Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Collector Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/direction for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2019 and 15.2.2019 (Annexure-P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Cost of the petition.” 2. Mr. Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed dated 20.04.2015. He would further submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the concerned Patwari Circle No.38 Village-Portha, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa to delete the name of the petitioner and enter the suit property in the name of the State. He would contend that in the revenue records, such observation was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 07.02.2019 (Annexure P/1). He would further contend that no opportunity of hearing was granted by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, therefore, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and void-ab-initio. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Jaiswal. He would submit that the subject land is Government land, therefore, the order was passed by respondent No.3 to delete the name of the petitioner and enter the name of the State. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. A perusal of Annexure P/1 would show that an order was passed by respondent No.3 on 07.02.2019 whereby Halka Patwari was 3 directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and enter the name of the State against Survey Nos.390/2 and 390/3. 6. From a perusal of the sale deed dated 20.04.2015, it is evident that Survey No.390/2 was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 20.04.2015. 7. Since no opportunity of hearing was afforded and the subject land was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed, Annexure P/1 dated 07.02.2019 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to initiate a fresh inquiry and after a due opportunity of hearing, the authority concerned shall take a decision with regard to the deletion of the name of the petitioner from the revenue records. The revenue authorities are also directed to record the name of the petitioner against Survey No.390/2 & 390/3 till a decision is taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha