1 2025:CGHC:37896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4083 of 2025 1 - Omprakash Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Khomanlal Chandrakar Aged About 60 Years R/o Station Road, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajendra Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Khomanlal Chandrakar Aged About 58 Years R/o Station Road, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Akhilesh Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Khomanlal Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Station Road, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Sebya Chandrakar D/o Late Shri Khomanlal Chandrakar Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Kosmanda, Tehsil And District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 5 - Anjana Chandrakar D/o Late Shri Khomanlal Chandrakar Aged About 54 Years R/o Mahadev Ghat Road, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - Tarun Chandrakar Alias Lal S/o Late Shri Deen Bandhu Chandrakar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Birkoni, Tehsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondents : : Mrs. Akansha Verma Dabhadkar, Panel Lawyer Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/08/2025 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 issue a suitable writ(s), order(S), direction(s) by quashing the impugned order dated 27.05.2025, along with the complete revenue proceeding and all order sheets drawn in Revenue Case No. 202505120600039/A- 5/2024-25 (Deen Bandhu Vs. State of C.G.) (AnnexureP/1) passed by the respondent no. 4 and to issue a suitable writ in the nature of prohibition for preventing an order or decision being made which if made would be subject to certiorari. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant petition is against the entire proceeding (Annexure P/1) drawn by the 3 court of learned Tahsildar, Mahasamund (Respondent no. 4), in Revenue Case No. 202505120600039/A-5/2024-25 (Deen Bandhu Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) whereby, the respondent no. 4, has drawn the proceeding under the C.G. Land Revenue Code and on an application preferred by one Deen Bandhu Chandrakar (now dead) and had passed an order by usurping the power bestowed to Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 89 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code for correcting the errors of Land Settlement and Revenue Surveys, without the authority of law, by exceeding the jurisdiction, upon the application moved by one Deen Bandhu Chandrakar (now dead), for the relief of correcting the errors in land settlement records. And whereas to correct the error in settlement land record, as per Section 89 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 vest with the power and jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The impugned proceeding and its final order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) is an order, which is against the power and jurisdiction of Tahsildar, Mahasamund. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent no. 5 has raised an objection that Om Prakash Chandrakar and Toshan Chandrakar has made complaint before the Collector on dated 15.07.2025 with regard to order impugned (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, Toshan Chandrakar who is grandson of Ratan lal Chandrakar has filed an appeal before the SDO (R) bearing case no. 202507120300039/2024-25 under Section 44(1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by the counsel for respective parties, it is crystal clear that petitioner has knowledge that his brother Toshan Chandrakar has filed appeal against the order of Tahsildar before the SDO(R) under Section 44(1) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. therefore, at this juncture there is no need to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that they may participate in the proceeding pending before the respondent no. 3 and in turn respondent no. 3 is directed to decide the case within 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima