1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 992 of 2023 1 - Late. Mahesh Kumar Verma Through Legal Heirs, Mamta Shrivastav W/o Late S.K. Shrivastav Aged About 62 Years R/o Rama Valley, Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Samta Shrivastav W/o Sunil K. Shrivastav Aged About 59 Years R/o Sun- City, 403, 1-B, Thakur Village , Kandivali, Mumbai (M.H.) 3 - Vinay Kumar Verma S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Verma Aged About 57 Years R/o Juni Line, Behind Suruchi Restaurant, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Of Vinay Kumar Verma, S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Age About 57 Years, R/o Behind Suruchi Restaurant, Juni Line, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Rajesh Kumar Verma S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o 17/6, Grasim Staff Colony, Nagda, Distt. Nagda (M.P.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Of Vinay Kumar Verma, S/o Late Mahesh Kumar Age About 57 Years, R/o Behind Suruchi Restaurant, Juni Line, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Arun Kumar Verma S/o Late Shankar Prasad Verma R/o B-24, Shailendra Nagar Bagrecha Nursing Home Raipur Tahsil And Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Patwari Patwari Halka No. 18 Tehsil Bilha, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Tehsildar Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 4 - Chairman Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Aman Ansari, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased to call the records from Respondent no. 4 President, Revenue Board, Bilaspur (CG) in the matter of R.N./02/R/A-27/239/2016 Mahesh Kumar Verma (dead) though Legal Heir Mamta Shrivastav and ors Vs. Arun Kumar and ors. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 4 (President, Revenue Board, Bilaspur (CG) to delete/remove the name of Mamta Shrivastav and Samta Shrivastav from the Revision application. 10.3 Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favor of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice. 10.4 Cost of the Petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the civil suit has already been concluded and the second appeal is pending for consideration before the High Court. 3. Considering the submissions made by counsel for respondent No.1, and as the issue involved in the present case has already been 3 decided by the Competent Civil Court, no case is made out for interference. 4. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi