1 2025:CGHC:19612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 171 of 2020 • Jabdial Chhattar S/o Dayadhar Chhattar, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village - Jagdishpur, Police Station - Basna, Tahsil Pithoura, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Evangelical Trust Association Of North India, Through - Power Of Attorney Holder Premkishor Bagh, R/o Village - Jagdishpur, Police Station - Basna, Tahsil Pithoura, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate\ For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. RN/12/R/A-6/214/2019 dated 13.11.2019, whereby the revenue revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application under Sections 115 and 116 of the CG Land Revenue Code was moved before Tehsildar for correction of revenue records on the basis of a will executed by his father dated 03.05.1990 pertaining to Survey Nos. 423 and 424 situated at Village Jagdishpur, Patwari Circle No. 33 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund. He would further submit that the application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the Tehsildar on the ground that a Church is situated over the subject property since 45 years and the execution of the valid will deed has not been proved. The order passed by the Tehsildar dated 28.02.2018 was affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) vide order dated 18.07.2018. He would also submit that a second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner and it was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2019. He would contend that a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the same has been dismissed without assigning sufficient reasons in a cryptic manner. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Tehsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer (R) and Commissioner against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No.1. They would further submit that the Board of Revenue while exercising the power of revision has to consider the illegalities in the orders impugned. They would contend that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner, therefore, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Section 50 of the CG Land Revenue Code reads as under:- “50. Revision.-(1) The Board [or the Commissioner] or the [Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or [District Survey Officer] may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it/him call for, and examine the record of 3 any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit : Provided that- (i) no application for revision shall be entertained- (a) against an order appealable under this Code; (b) against an order of the [Commissioner, Land Records] under Section 210; (c) against an order passed in revision by the [Commissioner or] the[Commissioner, Land Records] in respect of cases under Section 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion; (ii) An application for revision against any order can be made withing a period of 60 days from the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded;] (iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) (i) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the Board under sub-section (1) no action shall be taken by the [Commissioner or] the [Commissioner, Land Records] the Collector or the [District Survey Officer] in respect thereof; (ii) where proceedings in respect of any case have been commenced by the [Commissioner or] the [Commissioner, Land Records] under sub-section (1), no action shall be taken by the Collector or the [District Survey Officer] in respect thereof; (iii) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the [Commissioner] [Commissioner, Land Records], Collector or [District Survey Officer] under sub- section (1), the Board may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the [Commissioner or the] [Commissioner, Land Records] or the Collector or the [District Survey Officer], as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit; (iv) where proceedings in respect of any such case have been commenced by the Collector or the [District Survey Officer] under sub-section (1), [the Commissioner or] the [Commissioner, Land Records] may either refrain from taking any action under this section in respect of such case until the 4 final disposal of such proceedings by the Collector or the [District Survey Officer], as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings and pass such order as it may deem fit. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section all Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board. 6. A bare reading of Section 50 of the CG Land Revenue Code would show that the revisional authorities under the Land Revenue Code have to examine the legality of the orders passed by the sub-ordinate revenue authorities. As there is a concurrent finding to the effect that a Church has been situated over the subject property for 45 years and the petitioner also failed to prove the due execution of the will deed, the revision preferred by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 7. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti