1 2025:CGHC:18790-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 226 of 2025 Umashankar S/o Late Chhatradhari Banafar Aged About 36 Years R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Rev) Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Patwari Halka No. 40 Tifra Tahsil Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Station House OfÏcer Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Satish Kumar Banafar S/o Late Chhatradhari Banafar Aged About 43 Years Occupation-Overman Engineer, SECL, Kusmunda, Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh R/o Quarter No. 273, SECL Kusmunda Colony, Behind Central School, Kusmunda, Korba District- Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Adv. BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.25 17:23:04 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravipal Maheswari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to grant compensation for harassment and heavy expenses amount for correction of revenue record and to take appropriate legal action against the concerned respondent authorities, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner's father late Chhatradhari Banafar has purchased the subject land bearing khasra No. 365 area 2100 sqft. through registered sale deed dated 30.01.2002 from Raghuvir Prasad, which is situated at village Tifra, P.H. 23, Revenue Circle Bilaspur, Tahsil and 3 District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, thereafter, the subject land was recorded in the name of Chhatradhari son of Ramlakhan in the revenue record. Since then Chhatradhari Banafar has peaceful in possession over the subject land and constructed the residential house. The petitioner's father Chhatradhari Banafar, son of Ramlakhan expired on 03.02.2015 and after the death of Chhatradhari Banafar, the subject land was mutated in the name of Satish, Umashankar, Usha, Anita, Anusuiya, Ayush, Manmati, since then the petitioenr and other persons are holding the possession as per revenue record and living peaceful in the residential house in subject land. Intentionally the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the revenue record and recorded only in the name of private respondent No. 7-Satish son of Chhatradhari in revenue record without giving any information. Thereafter, private respondent No. 7 wanted to sell the subject property and threatened to dispossess the petitioner from his possession of subject land /house. When the petitioner has claimed that he has also right in subject land /house and cannot dispossess from the subject land, then private respondent No. 7 stated you have no any right, then the petitioner searched the revenue record and found that the subject land was recorded only in the name of private respondent No. 7 (Satish son of late Chhatradhari). Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned respondents authorities are illegally deleted the petitioner's 4 name from the revenue record from the subject land which is completely illegal, discriminatory and contrary to law. He further submits that the concerned respondent authorities without issuing notice to the petitioner deleted his name from revenue record, which is against the law and the private respondent No. 7 wanted to dispossess the petitioner from the land/house in question, whereas the subject land is a ancestor property and holding possession after death of the petitioner's father. Respondent No. 7 wanted to sale the subject property and dispossess from the subject house, whereas respondent No. 7 is government employee and working as Overman Engineer under the SECL, Kusmunda, Korba and the petitioner is an unemployment and only having shelter / house for residential. The petitioner harassed and unnecessary expenses for correction of revenue records due to illegally deleted his name from the revenue record and hence the petitioner is seeking compensation and to take appropriate legal action against the concerned respondent authorities. He also submits that the concerned revenue ofÏcer deliberately deleted the name of the petitioner from the revenue record which is punishable under the law and from the document annexed in the petition, it is clear that respondent No. 7 has committed alleged offence against the petitioner, but till today, the respondents authorities had not lodged report against respondent No. 7. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and suitable compensation for harassment may be granted to him. 5 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the dispute is of purely civil in nature and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.7 is of purely civil in nature as they both are real brothers, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to law before appropriate forum. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu