-1- 2025:CGHC:32749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 69 of 2025 Derha Ram Sahu S/o Late Thanuram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bendri, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Shyambati D/o Late Thanuram R/o Village Saragaon, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Jambati D/o Late Thanuram R/o Village - Bendri, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Johatri D/o Late Thanuram R/o Gogaon Suryanagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Manbati D/o Late Thanuram R/o Village Kukara, Tahsil Aarang District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Office Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Commissioner Division - Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.07.2025 1) The review petitioner has preferred this petition seeking review/modification of the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 682 of 2020, dated 14.02.2025. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in WPC No. 682 of 2020, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, affirming the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2025. 3) It is submitted that certain observations made in the order dated 14.02.2025 may cause prejudice to the petitioner in the event of filing a civil suit to establish title over the subject property; thus, he prays for modification of the said order by incorporating a clarification to the effect that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the competent civil court. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by Mr. Koshta. 5) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Koshta in order to ensure that the petitioner is not prejudiced in any future litigation before the competent Civil Court, this Court is inclined to allow the review petition to the limited extent of incorporating appropriate clarification in the order under review. 6) Accordingly, paragraph 10 of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 682 of 2020 shall stand substituted by the following: “10. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed at -3- the motion stage itself. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law and permitted to raise all the grievances raised herein before the concerned court, and the said court, after trial, shall record its own findings without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court in this order.” 9. The review petition is accordingly allowed, and the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 682 of 2020 stands modified to the extent indicated above. The aforementioned modification shall be read as part of the original order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim