1 2025:CGHC:12772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1405 of 2025 Fuleshwari Bai W/o Late Shri Mahettar Dhirhi Caste Satnami, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Village Baikunthpur, Tehsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 47, Village - Baikunthpur, Tahsil - Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 18.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.19 17:33:12 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the application (ANNEXURE-P/3) by correcting the name of petitioner in revenue records, within stipulated period of time, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief which this Court finds just and proper may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. In the instant petition, the petitioner is not challenging any particular order, but she is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents No.3 and 4 whereby after making the representations by the petitioner for correction of her name in the revenue records, respondent No.4 is not correcting the name of petitioner till date, whereas the name of petitioner is not showing her own land in revenue records, an error has been missed during preparation of khasra roster. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is permanent resident of Village -Baikunthpur, Tahsal Raigarh, Distt Raigarh (CG) having property bearing Khasra No.16/2 Rakba 0.663, hectare, which is part of Khasra No.16/2, Rakba 0.162 hectare, out of which remained above mentioned Khasra was recorded in the revenue records which is situated at village Baikunthpur, Tahsil- Raigarh, 3 Distt Raigarh. The petitioner was owner and possession holder of the aforesaid land since 1986 and the said land was purchased through registered sale deed by petitioner. The petitioner is an owner and peaceful possession holder of the said land, but when the petitioner obtained the revenue records in the year 2024, she know that her name is not showing in revenue records, thereafter, she made an application on 24.01.2025 before the respondent authorities for correction of revenue records, thereafter another application made by petitioner in this regard on 04.03.2025, but till date, the respondent authorities are not deciding the said applications and are still pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an owner and peaceful possession holder of the said land, but when the petitioner obtained the revenue records in the year 2024, she came to know that her name is not showing in revenue records, thereafter, she made an application on 24.01.2025 before the respondent authorities for correction of revenue records, thereafter another application made by petitioner in this regard on 04.03.2025, but till date, the respondent authorities are not deciding the said applications and are still pending. Hence, a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to decide her applications within a short span. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 4 7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, particularity the fact that since the case relates to mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, this Court does not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach before the competent authority for redressal of her grievance in respect of mutation of her name in the revenue records and in turn, the competent authority is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated time preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh