1 2025:CGHC:16756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 697 of 2016 • Janki Bai D/o Shri Kawal Singh, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Bharada Lodhi, Tahsil And Thana- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. Geeta Bai W/o Shri Kawal Singh, R/o Village- Bharada Lodhi, Tahsil And Thana - Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4. The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5. The Tahsildar, Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 5 / State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the petitioner above named most respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to call for entire records for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits that this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 26.9.2016 (Annexure-P/1). 10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 2. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.1. He would contend that there are 04 more living daughters of respondent No. 1 and all are married. He would further submit that respondent No.1 inherited 25 acres of agricultural land from her mother and executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner and alienated 1.87 hectares of land pertaining to Survey No. 04 situated at Village Bhardalodhi, Tehsil Saja, District Durg. The Tehsildar passed an order of mutation in favour of the petitioner on 18.05.2001. He would also submit that respondent No. 1 herself challenged the order of mutation by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saja on 12.11.2002 and it was allowed vide order dated 28.07.2003. 3. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat would argue that the appeal was preferred after the expiry of limitation and sufficient cause was not assigned by respondent No.1 in the application for condonation of delay. He would contend that the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur and a revision before the Board of Revenue. The appeal as well as revision were dismissed. He would pray to set aside the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and affirmed by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 2 to 5 would oppose. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) after considering the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, allowed it and also passed an order in favour of respondent No.1 in the appeal. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has been 3 affirmed by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue and there is a concurrent finding recorded by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the order of mutation passed in favor of the petitioner was challenged by her mother/owner of the property herself therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 8. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti