1 2025:CGHC:35704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3862 of 2025 1 - Himanshu Bagh S/o Jaspal Bagh Aged About 38 Years R/o Kalika Nagar, Tifra, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Jaspal Bagh @ Jaspal Yadav S/o Late Madhusudan Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Kalika Nagar, Tifra, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Basant Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Nakchhed Prasad Tiwari Aged About 78 Years R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Chhotelal Yadav S/o Late Tiblu R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 3 - Tijram S/o Late Tiblu R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 4 - Dhanva S/o Balram R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 5 - Mohan Lal S/o Late Nakchhed Prasad R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 6 - Salikram S/o Late Nakchhed Prasad R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 7 - Sandeep Tiwari S/o Late Balram Prasad R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 8 - Sushil Tiwari S/o Late Balram Prasad R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 9 - Shailendra Tiwari S/o Late Balram Prasad R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 10 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Chunnilal R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 2 11 - Suresh Kumar S/o Gopal R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 12 - Rajkumar Sahu S/o Late Chhedilal Sahu R/o Village Kirna, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, C.G. 13 - Girdhari Lal S/o Sadhwaram R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 14 - Bisahu S/o Babudas R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 15 - Ramhula Bai W/o Siyaram R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 16 - Judawan S/o Baburam R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 17 - Archna Sharma W/o Suresh Kumar R/o Village Madwani, Tahsil Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. 18 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District- Mungeli, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For State : : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the orders dated 8.04.2016 passed by SDO (R) Pathariya, 19.09.2016 Learned Commissioner Bilaspur Division and 20.02.2025 Board of Revenue, and affirm the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar on 09.07.2015 in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the revenue authorities to mutated the name of 3 petitioners in revenue records o the basis of sale deeds. 10.3 Any other relief/order may also be granted that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by SDO (R) Pathariya allowed 19.09.2016 Learned Commissioner Bilaspur Division rejected the revision filed by the petitioners and 20.02.2025 Board of Revenue also rejected the petition of the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents opposes the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that respondent no. 1 filed an application before Additional Tahsildar Sargaon on 31.06.2015 for correction of records under Section 115, 116 of C.G. Land Revenue Code. The Additional Tahsildar rejected the application vide order dated 09.07.2015. Being aggrieved by which, the respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the SDO (R) Pathariya under Section 44(1) of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2016. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Commission Division Bilaspur which was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2016. Being aggrieved by which the petitioners filed revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 50 of C.G. Land Revenue Code which was also rejected vide order dated 20.02.2025. 4 6. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the record that there is a dispute by and between the parties with regard to title and possession of the suit land which will be decided only by the Civil Court. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file civil suit before the competent Civil Court, if so desire. 8. Certified copies of the impugned orders be returned after retaining the photocopy of same. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima