-1- 2025:CGHC:16224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 876 of 2019 Laxmi Prasad Patel S/o Raghunath Prasad Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Gindola, Tahsil- Kharsia, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sub Division Officer(Revenue) Through Kharsia, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Samaru Kanwar S/o Vishnu Kanwar R/o Village- Gindola, Tahsil- Kharsia, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - (Deleted) Smt. Chauk Mati (Died) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 27-01- 2025). 5 - Sharan Mati D/o Fadal Mahant R/o Village- Amapali, Tahsil- Pusour, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Prahlad Patel S/o Raghunath Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Gindola, Tahsil- Kharsia, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- For Petitioner : Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Yashashwi Singhi, Advocate, holding the brief of Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.04.2025 1) The instant writ petition is being preferred against the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the Additional Collector Raigarh (C.G.) in Appeal Case No.-3/A- 23/2016-17 (Samaru V/s. Laxmi Prasad & Others) (Annexure P/1), whereby the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) [for short, SDO(R)] was set-aside and the matter was remitted back to decide it afresh. 2) Mr. Jeet Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 170 (B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, CGLRC) before the SDO(R), Raigarh and that application was decided by the said authority treating it as an application under Section 178 (B) of the CGLRC. He would further submit that respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Raigarh and the order passed by the SDO(R) was set- aside and the matter was remitted back to the SDO(R) to decide it afresh. -3- 3) He would further submit that the four times applications were moved by respondent No.3 under Section 170B of the CGLRC and all those applications were dismissed by the SDO(R). The orders passed by the SDO (R) were affirmed by the Collector and Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh. He would contend that again an application under Section 170B of CGLRC was moved before the SDO(R) and there was a typographical mistake in the order passed by SDO (R) but the application was rejected on merits. He would also submit that the Additional Collector, Raigarh failed to appreciate the above-stated facts. He would pray to set-aside the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 23.07.2018. 4) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel and submit that the Additional Collector, Raigarh remitted back the matter to the SDO(R) as an application moved by respondent No. 3 under Section 170B of the CGLRC was rejected treating it as an application under Section 170(B) of the CGLRC. They would further submit that the petitioner would be at liberty to make his submission before the said authority along with relevant documents; thus, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Perusal of the order passed by the SDO(R), Raigarh dated 21.10.2016 would show that the application moved by respondent No. 3 under Section 170 B of the CGLRC was rejected treating it as an application under -4- Section 178(B) of the CGLRC, therefore, the Additional Collector remitted back the matter to the SDO(R) to decide it afresh. It would be noteworthy to mention here that the Additional Collector has not decided the case on merits. 6) The petitioner would get sufficient opportunity before the SDO(R) to place on record the earlier orders passed in the proceedings under Section 170 B CGLRC along with judgments passed by the various Courts; thus, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made for interference. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 7) Taking into consideration the fact that the application filed under Section 170(B) of the CGLRC was moved by respondent No.3 in the year 2016, the SDO(R) is directed to make all endeavors to conclude the proceedings within a period of 4 months from receipt of a copy of this order. 8) The parties are directed to appear before the SDO(R), Raigarh on 30.04.2025. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim