1 2025:CGHC:36039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3891 of 2025 1 - Smt. Usha Devi W/o Ranjeet Singh Sachan Aged About 62 Years R/o Amleshwar, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, At Present R/o New Colony, Infront Of Nutan School, Tikarapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Durg Division District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Tahsildar Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Shri Ratan Lal Sahu R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Ganga W/o Shri Mukesh Sahu R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Rinki W/o Shri Benuram Sahu R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Jyoti W/o Umesh Sahu R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Devki W/o Domal Sahu R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 9 - Dageshwar S/o Late Munni Lal Sahu Minor Through Natural Guardian Puneet Ram Sahu S/o Late Mataru Sahu, R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - Sukhsagar S/o Late Munni Lal Minor Through Natural Guardian Puneet Ram Sahu S/o Late Mataru Sahu, R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 11 - Punit S/o Late Mataru Sahu R/o Amleshwar, Post Sakara, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh 12 - Meghnath S/o Late Mataru Sahu R/o Amleshwar, Post Sakara, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 13 - Preetam S/o Late Mataru Sahu R/o Amleshwar, Post Sakara, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh 14 - Kundan Singh Thakur S/o Shri Mannu Singh Thakur R/o Kushalpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 15 - Umesh Sharma S/o Kailash Sharma R/o Kushalpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Akansha Verma Dabhadkar, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P/1) and to grant the relief as prayed by the petitioner in her application filed under Section 32 of Land Revenue Code. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue/ Respondent no. 1, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue/respondent no. 1 has been dismissed. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 32 of Land Revenue Code before the respondent no. 3 which was rejected 3 and the respondent no. 1 without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that the order passed by the respondent no. 1 is true and correct and does not need any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The operative portion of the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 reads as under: ^^U;k;ky; vk;qDr] nqxZ laHkkx ds }kjk fnukad 24-10-2019 dks vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS fd izdj.k esa la;qDr tkap mijkar izfrosnu vuqlkj xq.knks”k ij fujkdj.k fd, tkus ds Ik’pkr~ vfHkys[k esa la’kks/ku fd;k tk ldrk gS ,oa ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[kus ls izdj.k ds xq.knks”k ij fujkdj.k esa dksbZ foijhr izHkko iM+us dh laHkkouk ugha gSA vk;qDr dh ;g foospuk Hkh fof/klaxr~ gS] D;ksafd izdj.k fopkjk/khu voLFkk esa gS ,oa eqy izdj.k cankscLr =qfV dh oS/krk@voS/krk ij vafre :i ls lE;d tkap mijkar fof/kd fu”d”kZ ij igqaps vfHkys[k esa la’kks/ku fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA vr% vkosfndk dks vius vuqrks”k ds laca/k esa uk;c rglhynkj }kjk izdj.k esa xq.knks”k ij vkns’k ikfjr djus dh le;kof/k rd izrh{kk djuh pkfg,] D;ksafd ;fn vkosfndk dk dFku nLrkostksa ls iq”V gksdj izekf.kr gS] rc rn~uqlkj ml ij fof/kd fopkj.k fd;k tkuk uk;c rglhynkj ds fy, vkKkid gSA vr% iqujh{k.k esa fujkdj.k djus dk lE;d fof/kd vk/kkj orZeku esa ugha gSA ^^ 4 6. It is crystal clear from the above order that revenue board has not passed any order against the petitioner and the case is remanded back to the concerned authority by the Revenue Board. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. However, looking to the pendency of the case Nayab Tahsildar is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner after hearing both the concerned parties and decide the case on its own merits within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dispose of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima