1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1131 of 2025 1 - M/s Shubh Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through The President Namely Sameer Shirivastava, Aged About 53 Years, S/o - Lt. Shivkumar Shrivastava, R/o - Ashwani Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Alok Mahawar S/o Banwarilal Mahawar Aged About 53 Years R/o Kavita Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 31.01.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur in Case No. M/Restro/14/R/A-12/07/2025 whereby the petitioner’s application for restoration of its restoration application bearing No. M/Restro/12/R/A-12/17/2023 which had earlier been dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.08.2024 came to be rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in dispute forms part of Khasra No. 368/2 admeasuring 0.95 hectare situated at village -Raipura District Raipur (C.G.). He submits that the respondent claims title and HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.02.05 10:48:16 +0530 2 possession over the said property which is adjacent to the land owned by the petitioner. Owing to a dispute regarding the identity of the suit property, the petitioner moved an application under Section 127 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, “the Code of 1959”) before the Tahsildar, Raipur seeking demarcation. The said application was dismissed by the Tahsildar, Raipur whereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raipur (Revenue) (for short, “SDO”). The appeal was allowed by the SDO, which order was assailed by the respondent before the Commissioner, Raipur Division. The Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, as a consequence of which the petitioner’s application for demarcation stood dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench, Raipur. The said revision petition was dismissed for want of prosecution by order dated 10.08.2022. Seeking restoration thereof, the petitioner filed a restoration application before the Board of Revenue; however, the said application was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.08.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application seeking restoration of the earlier restoration application which too was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 holding that restoration of a restoration application dismissed for want of prosecution does not appear to be bona fide. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only seeking restoration of the revision petition so that the matter may be adjudicated on merits. It is contended that denial of such opportunity would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the sole reason assigned by the Board of Revenue for rejecting the application is the alleged lack of bona fides and is unsustainable. He prays that the writ petition may be allowed, the 3 impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be restored even subject to imposition of costs. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been thoroughly negligent and casual in prosecuting the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. It is argued that not only was the original revision dismissed for want of prosecution but even the restoration application met with the same fate which clearly reflects the lackadaisical approach of the petitioner. Such conduct, disentitles the petitioner from seeking any discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Be that as it may, upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 has never been adjudicated on merits. It is true that the petitioner had earlier filed a restoration application which was dismissed for want of prosecution and that the subsequent application seeking restoration of the said restoration application was also rejected on the ground of lack of bona fides. However, the fact remains that the substantive rights of the parties arising from the revision petition are yet to be examined. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure P/1) deserves to be interfered with. Accordingly, the said order is hereby set aside. The Board of Revenue is directed to restore the restoration case bearing No. M/Restro/14/R/A-12/17/2023 to its original number and decide the same on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today, failing 4 which this order shall lose its efficacy. Parties shall appear before Board of Revenue on 28.02.2026. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari