1 / 3 2025:CGHC:37605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4039 of 2025 Deepak Alias Dileshwar Sahu S/o Umedi Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sukuldehan, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Ramdev Bandhe S/o Dhanau Ram Bandhe, R/o Village Tumaribor, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 31/07/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 10/06/2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, whereby the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 50 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 against the order dated 19/10/2023 passed by the Commissioner Durg, Division Durg, C.G. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.02 13:01:42 +0530 2 / 3 2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is the Respondent canvassed before the Naib Tahsildar, Tumribor that his father namely Dhanau Ram Bandhe was granted ownership right over the piece of Abadi Land bearing Khasra No.344/4, Plot No.128, 129 admeasuring 0.05 decimal by the Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon and he was in peaceful possession over the said land during his life time and after his death the said land was owned by his brother and it is the allegation of the Respondent that after the death of his uncle petitioner encroached the subject land and started raising construction over the same. Thereafter, the Respondent filed an application before the Naib Tahsildar and on such application a revenue case was registered and the said proceedings travelled up to the Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue passed order in favour of the Respondent. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that during the lifetime Santuram entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner for the subject land for a consideration amount of Twenth Two Lakhs and part payment was made pursuant to which the petitioner was given the possession, however, despite that the Board of Revenue has held that the sale of the subject land in favour of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents. 3 / 3 5. From perusal of the documents, it shows that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the private party with regard to title and possession of the subject land, which cannot be decided in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit before the competent Court having the jurisdiction. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu