1 2025:CGHC:19149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2061 of 2025 1 - Bhau Singh Sahu S/o Late Madho Ram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dunda, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Gajadhar Sahu S/o Late Madho Ram Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Dunda, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Dhani Ram Sahu S/o Late Madho Ram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Dunda, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Rajesh Dani S/o Late Bala Saheb Dani Aged About 56 Years R/o Danibada, Budhapara, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur At Circuit Court Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Commissioner, Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 6 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Res. No. 2 To 6 Were Not Party Before Revenue Court Below) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/04/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. in case no. R.N./14/R.A-6/297/2024 and grant interim protection to the petitioners during pendency of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ or writs/order or orders/direction or directions which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the 3 order dated 03.12.2024, by which the Board of Revenue has admitted the revision filed by the petitioners with an observation that there are legal ground available in the revision and the revision is required to be adjudicated, however, the application for grant of stay filed by the petitioners have been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the application for grant of stay has been considered by the Board of Revenue and rejected the same on merit. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 5. The paragraph 3 of order dated 03.12.2024 is very clear, that the Board of Revenue has observed that the petitioners name are required to be mutated and the revision filed by the petitioners are having various legal ground which can be adjudicated in the revision petition, however by admitting the revision, it has rejected the stay application moved by the petitioners. As the Board of Revenue has admitted the revision and observed that there are grounds to hear the matter of revision, the application for grant of stay ought not to have been rejected. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is contrary to his own observation. Without arising any reasonable and speaking order stay application has been dismissed. Hence, the impugned order rejecting the stay application is quashed and till the disposal of 4 the revision before the Board of Revenue the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division is hereby quashed and, in turn, the Commissioner Raipur Division is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in respect of interim application filed by the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat