1 2025:CGHC:15796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 969 of 2019  Sudama Prasad Shukla S/o Shri Sharda Prasad Shukla Aged About 70 Years R/o Green Park Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Suresh Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Sharda Prasad Shukla R/o Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03. 04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondent state. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 03/01/2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (CG) [Part of Annexure-P/1]. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 02/09/2016 passed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.07 14:19:21 +0530 2 Additional Collector, Bilaspur (CG) [Annexure-P/2]. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the cost of this petition along with advocate fee to petitioner, as decided by this Hon'ble Court. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate, in favor of petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of lands situated over survey Nos. 127/1, 127/2 क, 127/2 ख, situated at Village Singhanpuri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. He would further submit that a complaint was made by respondent No. 1 before the Collector, Bilaspur in ‘Jan Darshan’ against the error that occurred in the revenue map. He would further submit that the Additional Collector, Bilaspur constituted a committee for the rectification of the map as according to respondent No. 1, there was a mistake in the division of the subject property. He would also submit that the Additional Collector, Bilaspur constituted a committee and revenue records were scrutinized and it was found that there was some mistake in the map of survey Nos. 127/1 and 127/2, and therefore, an order was passed to enter the name of respondent No. 1 in the revenue records against survey No. 127/1 admeasuring 0.17 acre, the name of the petitioner against survey No. 127/2 क admeasuring 0.12 acre, and the name of the State Government against survey No. 127/2 ख admeasuring 0.61 acre (open land). He would contend that the entire proceeding was conducted by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. He would further contend that an appeal was preferred against the said order before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, but the appeal has been dismissed vide order 3 dated 03.01.2019 on the ground that the appeal against the order passed by the Collector, Bilaspur, in ‘Jan Darshan’ would not be maintainable. He would also contend that when the order has been passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in a revenue proceeding, the appeal would lie before the Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 44 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Code, 1959”). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would oppose. Mr. Paranjpe would submit that proceedings under the Code, 1959 were not initiated by the Additional Collector rather on a complaint of respondent No. 1, cognizance was taken and a committee was constituted and consequently, the revenue record was rectified. He would further submit that the petitioner should have approached the competent Civil Court for the redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Evidently, a complaint was made by respondent No. 1 for correction of the map before the Collector, Bilaspur in ‘Jan Darshan’. The Additional Collector, Bilaspur constituted a committee and it was found that there was some mistake in the revenue record and the same was rectified. The name of respondent No. 1 was entered against survey Nos. 127/1 admeasuring 0.17 acre. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and the same has been dismissed treating it as not maintainable as the order was passed on a complaint made in ‘Jan Darshan’. The reasons assigned by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division appear to be erroneous. A revenue proceeding was 4 initiated by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur with regard to the correction of revenue records according to the provisions of Section 116 of the Code, 1959. As an order was passed in revenue proceeding; in the opinion of this Court, the appeal would lie to the Commissioner according to the provisions of Section 44 of the Code, 1959. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division appears to be erroneous and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of the law; therefore, the order dated 03.01.2019 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. 7. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division on the 6th of May, 2025. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant