1 2025:CGHC:1875-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 2 of 2025 Raja Bakawale S/o Lochan Prasad Bakawale Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Kodwa, Tehsil- Sarsiwa, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector District- Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (Chhattisgarh) 3. S.D.O. (Revenue) District- Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (Chhattisgarh) 4. Tehsildar Tehsil Sarsiwa, District- Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (Chhattisgarh) 5. Santosh Pandey P.H. No. 10, Tehsil Sarsiwa, District- Bilaigarh- Sarangarh (Chhattisgarh) 6. Chitkunwar W/o Shivkumar R/o Village- Kodwa, Tehsil- Sarsiwa, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.13 18:01:04 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5580 of 2024 (Raja Bakawale vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the owner of the suit land situated at P.H. No. 10, Khasra No. 500/1A, admeasuring 0.010 hectare at village Kodwa. She also submits that grandfather of appellant obtained the said land back in the year 1990 under Aawas Kuti Yojna. And till date, the owner of said land is the appellant. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that grandfather of appellant allowed / provided respondent No. 1 the permission to live in that house for same period of time, as the respondent No. 1 being an expecting lady. Later on the respondent No. 1 started constructing house under PM Grah Awas Yojna, on that said suit land, without having any ownership. She further submits that the appellant 3 moved an application before Tehsildar, dated 12.12.2023 against the act and conduct of construction of appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tehsildar after a thorough enquiry rejected the application of appellant. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the order of Tehsildar before Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Bilaigarh-Sarangarh and presented an appeal under Section 44(1) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, ‘Act of 1959’). She also states that during the pendency of the proceeding, respondent No. 1 on its own without any order/direction by learned Court, bought Patwari-report which was submitted by her counsel stating that respondent No. 6 was provided with that Patwari Prativedan by the Patwari/respondent No. 5 himself. The appellant vehemently objected to such conduct which are bad, perverse and illegal in law, against the conduct of respondent No. 6 in bringing Patwari-report by herself. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant also moved a compliant before SDO to decide his application of objection which has not been decided till date. SDO took that Patwari Prativedan on record and is further proceeding ahead without deciding the objection of the appellant. She also contended that the appellant moved a reminder letter before SDO and Collector both, but SDO has not decided the letter dated 01.10.2024. She would submit that by judgment dated 13.11.2024, the learned Single Judge disposed off the WPC No. 5580 of 2024 stating that the appellant if aggrieved, may present revision / appeal before higher authority. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 4 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that if said Patwari Prativedan has been submitted illegally, then it shall be decided by the SDO (Revenue), District Bilaigarh-Sarangarh in appeal proceeding. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 9. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that without seeking Patwari Prativedan by the Appellate Court i.e. the SDO (Revenue), District Bilaigarh-Sarangarh, Patwari Prativedan has been submitted. If filing of that Patwari Prativedan is found to be illegal or there is irregularity, then it shall be decided by the SDO (Revenue) in appeal proceeding. If any order is passed, to which, appellant is aggrieved, then he may raise this ground in appeal/revision before the higher authority. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of appellant to issue any direction in pending revenue proceeding. However, learned Single Judge expected that the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), District Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (CG) shall decide the Appeal No.202405321100033B / 121 / 2023-24 (Annexure P/3 in the writ petition) expeditiously. 10. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while disposing off the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are 5 of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan