1 2025:CGHC:1089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 66 of 2025 1 - Kamal Narayan Sahu S/o Late Rajau Ram Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Kolar, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajesh Dani S/o Late Bala Saheb Dani Aged About 56 Years R/o Danibada, Budhapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Not Party Before Revenue Court Below) 3 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Not Party Before Revenue Court Below) 4 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Rev) Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Not Party Before Revenue Court Below) 5 - Tahsildar Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Not Party Before Revenue Court Below) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajkumar Pali, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.08 23:04:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 08.01.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 03.12.2024, by which the Board of Revenue admitted the revision filed by the petitioner with an observation that there are legal ground available in the revision and the revision is required to be adjudicated, however the application for grant of stay filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application for grant of stay has been considered by the Board of Revenue and rejected the same on merit. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 4. The paragraph 3 of order dated 03.12.2024 is very clear, that the Board of Revenue observed that the petitioner name is entitled to be mutated and the revision filed by the petitioner is having various legal ground which can be adjudicated in the revision petition, however by admitting the revision, rejected the stay application moved by the petitioner. As the Board of Revenue has admitted the revision and observed that there are ground to hear the matter of revision, the application for grant of stay ought not to have been rejected. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is contrary to his own observation. Hence the impugned order rejecting the stay application is quashed and till the disposal of the revision before the 3 Board of Revenue the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division is stayed. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib