1 2025:CGHC:20950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2317 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kunti Devi Widow Of Lt. Rangu Sao Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Amtahi, Guljarpara, Tahsil- Kusmi (Samri), District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Board Of Revenue Through The President/ Chairman, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Additional Commissioner Surguja Division, District- Surguja (C.G.). 4 - Collector Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.). 5 - Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/05/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 issue notices to the respondents, returnable within early date of hearing. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 10.2 directing the respondent No. 4 & 5 for compliance with the order passed by the Commissioner dated 29.04.2016 as per the memo dated 24.03.2025 & 02.04.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3 deciding the representation moved by the petitioner within stipulated period. 10.3 issue any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioners, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 29.04.2016, the State has preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which the Board of Revenue has set aside the order of Additional Commissioner. He further submits that the petitioner filed a petition before this Court in which it has been held that the Board of Revenue is not having power and jurisdiction to pass such an order and the authorities are granted liberty to approach before the State Government. This order was passed in WPC No. 540/2018 on 17.01.2025. However, after passing of such an order no action has been taken by the State authorities to prefer any appeal/ revision etc before the State Government. He further submits that that order passed by the Additional Commissioner attend finality and accordingly the respondent authorities are required to mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records which is not being done as such this petition has been filed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the order of Additional Commissioner has 3 attained finality and the State has not preferred any appeal/ revision before the State Government as such the concerned Tahsildar is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a period of 45 days from the production of a copy of this order. 6. With this observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat