1 2025:CGHC:50281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5276 of 2025 1 - Devdutt S/o Late Meghu Aged About 65 Years Caste- Ahir, R/o Village Devtikra, Thana And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surajpur C.G. 2 - Rajendra S/o Late Kailash Aged About 40 Years (Died), Caste- Ahir, R/o Village Devtikra, Thana And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surajpur C.G. 3 - Balinder S/o Late Kailash Aged About 35 Years Caste- Ahir, R/o Village Devtikra, Thana And Tahsil Udaypur, District Surajpur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, Through Its Member, Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The Commissioner, Sarguja Division, District Sarguja C.G. 4 - The Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Rev.), Sub Division Udaipur, District Surguja C.G. 5 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil Odgi, District Surguja C.G. 6 - Smt. Samptiya D/o Late Surajilal W/o Goverdhan Aged About 70 Years Caste- Ahir, R/o Village Ragunathpur, Tahsil Premnagar District Surajpur C.G. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv For Respondent-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:- (I) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / or writs / order / or orders/ to set aside the interim order dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) and maintain the Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.10.10 11:21:24 +0530 2 order dated 29.12.2003 (Annexure P-4) in the interest of justice. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order(s) as it deems fit, in the interest of justice. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the interim order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Revenu Revision No. RN/16/R/A27/237/2025, village / Nagar, Devtikra, Tahna & Tahsil Udaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Petitioner has filed an application before the Respondent No. 03, alleging therein that the respondent no.06 had submitted an application dated 01.04.2003 before the Tehsildar, Udaipur for adding his name in suit land of the petitioner in which the Tehsildar, Udaipur passed an order on 29.12.2003 in favor of the petitioner in Revenue case number 06/31-631/2003-2004, Sampatiya V/s Rajendre and others. That in view of the transfer of name in favor of the petitioner and the partion between them, the name of the respondent cannot be added in the suit land, because the application of the respondent is beyond the time limit. if she wants to take any ownership or has any right, then she can go to the civil court, therefore the respondent no. 05 has reject the application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent Sampatiya file an application under section 115,116 before the Tahsildar but she never did not challenge the said order dated 29.12.2003 in any court, hence the said order is binding on the respondent. The respondent also hides the said 3 fact from the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer Revenue Udaipur and did not inform the Sub- Divisional OfÏcer Udaipur about the true facts, because the respondent did not appear in the court with clean hands, from beginning to end. The disputed which was the land of Meghu name is also recorded in SETTLMENT. Meghu had two sons Kailash and Devdutt, Kailash has died who's after that children are party, Late Meghu had already divided the land among his two sons during his lifetime itself. The said division of the year 1987 i.e. on 14.02.1987, the suit land has already been divided in favor of petitioners under mutation proceeding and transfer after death of Meghu. The respondent no.6 did not challenge the transfer of property in any court he has directly challenged the order dated 14.02.1987 between petitioners which was totally illegal. The respondent did not appeal against the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by Tahsildar Udaypur in case Rn 060/6/2003-2004 Sampatiya vs Rajendre and others, which he had presented under section 115,116 CG Land Revenue Code. She is directly approach after more than 13 years before the S.D.O Udaipur and she did not mention about delay. Hence this petition. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents raised objection and submits that the order under Challenge is not a final order and the impugned interim order does not effect the right of the petitioner in any manner and the proceeding is still pending before the Board of Revenue Bilaspur. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 4 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is still pending before the Board of Revenue and the final order has still not been passed, therefore the writ petition against the interim order is not maintainable and there is no ground made by the petitioner to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter before the Board of Revenue, if he so desires. 8. Reluctance of this Court in entertaining of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from availing other remedies open to him under law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti