1 2025:CGHC:54396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5799 of 2025 1. Mohd Mumtaaj S/o Late Jamaluddin Aged About 61 Years 2. Mohd Mustak S/o Late Jamaluddin Aged About 55 Years 3. Mohd Astaak S/o Late Jamaluddin Aged About 51 Years 4. Mohd. Nesaar S/o Late Jamaluddin Aged About 48 Years 5. Mohd Kamruddin S/o Late Jamaluddin Aged About 45 Years 6. Mohd Kalaam S/o Late Jamuluddin Aged About 41 Years All are by Caste Momin, R/o Village & Post Kusmi, Tahsil Kusmi District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2. Sub Divisional Officer Kusmi District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 3. Tahsildar Saamri (Kusmi) District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 4. Revenue Inspector Revenue Inspection Circle Kusmi Tahsil Kusmi District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 5. Sagar Paikra S/o Surjan Paikra Caste Kanwar R/o Village Kusmi Tahsil Saamri (Kusmi) District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Tripathi Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 4 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “i. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 24.12.2018 as passed by Tahsildar Kusmi District Balrampur Ramanujganj, for correction of the Map of Khasra No.745/1 of Village Kusmi by attaching Map of the Khasra No.745/1 with the road Annexure P 9 Page No.167 and thereby corrected the map as before year 2018. ii. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be set aside the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional officer Revenue Kusmi District Balrampur Ramanujganj whereby the learned Court has allowed the application for dispossession of the suit Land bearing Khasra No.745/1 area 0.276 hec. Land of Village Kusmi as per new corrected Map wherein the Khasra No.745/1 has been shown attached to the road and the Khasra No.745/4 area 0.25 dis land of village Kusmi has been deleted from the Map. iii. That the Hon’ble Court may further set aside the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Learned Collector Balrampur-Ramanujganj whereby the said authority has confirmed the order dated 10.01.2025 Annexure P 2, passed by the Sub divisional Officer Revenue Kusmi whereby. iv. That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the present petitioner in the interest of justice along with costs of the petition.” 3 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Tahsildar has initiated proceeding for correction of Map on the application submitted by respondent No.5 and thereafter passed the order dated 24.12.2018 correcting the revenue Map without issuing notice to petitioners and therefore the order passed by the Tahsidlar is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that after getting revenue map corrected, respondent No.5 filed an application under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code of 1959’) before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Kusmi on which order has been passed against petitioners herein on 10.1.2025. He also submitted that the order passed by respondent No.2-SDO directing reversal of land in favour of respondent No.5 is put to challenge in an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code of 1959 before the Collector, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with writ petition. 4. Perusal of documents i.e. proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under Section 170B of the Code of 1959 revealed that the order passed by the Tahsildar for correction of revenue map was put to challenge by petitioners before the respondent No.2. However, this fact is neither pleaded in writ petition nor argued by learned counsel for petitioner during course of arguments before this Court. When a question is put to learned counsel for petitioner as to what happened after rejection of first appeal filed against the order of Tahsildar directing for correction of revenue map, he also submits 4 that the order passed by respondent No.2 was not put to challenge. 5. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case, in particular the fact that the order of Tahsildar correcting revenue map is already put to challenge by petitioners in an appeal under Section 44 of the Code of 1959 before the respondent No.2, which was also dismissed, as submitted by learned counsel for petitioners, and instead of taking recourse to challenge the order passed by Tahsildar and respondent No.2 before appropriate forum as available under the Code of 1959, petitioners have filed this writ petition for setting aside of the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 24.12.2018, which was subject matter of appeal before respondent No.2-SDO, in the considered opinion of this Court, relief sought in Prayer Clause No.10 (i) cannot be granted because order dated 24.12.2018 has been upheld by learned first appellate authority, as submitted by learned counsel for petitioners. 6. So far as reliefs sought in Prayer Clause 10 (ii) & (iii) is concerned, relief claimed under Clause 10 (ii) is against the order dated 10.1.2025 passed by respondent No.2 in a proceeding under Section 170B of the Code of 1959 and relief claimed under Clause 10 (iii) is against the order dated 16.7.2025 passed by the Collector in an appeal filed under Section 44 (1) of the Code of 1959 against the order dated 10.1.2025 passed by the learned first appellate authority dismissing appeal and affirming the order of respondent No.2 passed in the proceeding under Section 170B of the Code of 1959. Petitioners are having remedy of filing second appeal under Section 44 (2) of the Code of 1959 before the Commissioner, 5 however, instead of filing such appeal, they have approached this Court challenging the order passed by learned first appellate authority under Section 170B of the Code of 1959. 7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner prays for return of the certified copies of documents enclosed along with writ petition. 9. Registry is directed to return back certified copies of documents retaining photocopies of the same. 10.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-