1 2025:CGHC:11354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1290 of 2025 1 Shankar Dutt Mishra S/o Late Mohan Ram Mishra Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Pratapgarh, P.S. And Tehsil- Sitapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) 2 Ram Dutt Mishra S/o Late Mohan Ram Mishra Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Pratapgarh, P.S And Tehsil - Sitapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) 3 Vishnu Dutt Mishra S/o Late Mohan Ram Mishra Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Pratapgarh, P.S And Tehsil - Sitapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) 4 Krishan Dutt Mishra S/o Late Mohan Ram Mishra Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Patna, P.S. And Tehsil- Patna Distt.- Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 Sub Divisional Officer (R) Tehsil- Sitapur Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.03.07 17:05:20 +0530 2 3 Naib Tehsildar Tehsil- Sitapur Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 07/03/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is questioning the order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the SDO (Revenue)/ Respondent No. 2 by which the application for correction of revenue records as rakba 0.376 hect of land bearing khasra No. 1087 situated at village Pratapgarh has wrongly been mentioned as 0.000 hect. has been rejected inspite of the fact that the inspection report submitted by the Patwari to the Tahsildar on 01.07.2024 is in petitioner’s favour and Patwari has observed that the entry of rakba against the land owned by the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned as 0.000 hect. by mistake and the same 3 can be corrected. However, inspite of the said report, the Revenue authority rejected the application of the petitioner stating that the petitioner failed to produce the documents towards the title of the land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted rin pustika and settlement deed which is in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the report submitted by the Patwari before the Tahsildar is also in favour of the petitioner and states that the necessary correction can be done, thus the Revenue authority should pass the order for necessary correction in the revenue record. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 appears to be just and proper, as the petitioner failed to produce the documents regarding his right over the land and the SDO (Revenue) has passed the order of rejection rightly. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and order sheets of the Tahsildar placed by the petitioner. 5. Perusal of the order sheet dated 01.07.2024 in the revenue proceeding shows that Halka Patwari by making a spot inspection opined that in the revenue record the area of the land owned by the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned as 0.000 whereas the same can be corrected as 0.376 hect bearing khasra No. 1087. Further, perusal of pleadings of the petitioner shows that the 4 petitioner has submitted the rin pustika and settlement deed before the SDO (Revenue) but inspite of that by a non-speaking and un-reasoned order the SDO (Revenue) has rejected the application without appreciating the report of the patwari, rin pustika and settlement deed. 6. Considering the same, the order of SDO (Revenue) dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the case is remanded back to the SDO (Revenue) Sitapur/ Respondent No. 2 to pass fresh orders by providing opportunity and by speaking and reasoned order by considering the fact that patwari has submitted a report before the SDO (Revenue) by opining that the necessary correction can be done. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti