1 2025:CGHC:19769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 413 of 2021 1. Smt. Puspha Sahu Wd/o Late Mohanlal Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Parsatthi, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Mohanlal S/o Late Rikhiram Sahu (Since Dead), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2. Khemendra Sahu S/o Late Mohanlal Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Parsatthi, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3. Pitesh Sahu S/o Late Mohanlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Parsatthi, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4. Indresh Sahu S/o Late Mohanlal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Parsatthi, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Mohanlal S/o Late Rikhiram Sahu (Since Dead) ... Petitioners Versus • Shitesh Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Parsatthi, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpa, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 07.05.2021, passed in Revenue Revision Case No. RN/4/R/A-5/233/2017 and the order passed by the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer may kindly be upheld. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that lands described in Para-8.2 of the writ petition were recorded in the name of Mohanlal, his mother and his brother. He would contend that an application for Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 correction of revenue entries was moved by the petitioners before the Tehsildar and it was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2012. He would contend that an appeal was preferred by the respondent against the said order and it was dismissed. The second appeal preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner was allowed on the ground that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent and the Board of Revenue has affirmed the findings recorded by the Commissioner vide order dated 07.05.2021. He would also submit that when the Commissioner recorded a categorical finding that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the respondent, the authority concerned ought to have remitted back the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) to decide it afresh after affording the due opportunity of hearing to the parties. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is the owner of Survey No. 108/7 admeasuring 2.02 hectares. He would further submit that Survey No. 108/7 was changed and it became 377 admeasuring 2.02 hectares, but in the revenue records the area of 1.23 hectares was shown pursuant to the order passed in favour of the petitioners by the Tehsildar dated 03.05.2012, therefore, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R). He would contend that the learned Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the dispute involved in the present case, the order passed by the Commissioner is hereby modified. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Kurud, District Dhamtari 3 to decide it afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sections 115 and 116 of the CG Land Revenue Code after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondent. The parties are directed to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Kurud, District Dhamtari on 09.06.2025. 6. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti