1 2025:CGHC:50545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5305 of 2025 1 - Kapoorchand S/o Late Shri Kariya Aged About 51 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Bakarkuda, P.O. Tikari, Police Station Malhar, Tehsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Nayab Tahsildar Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ghanaram S/o Shri Kadha Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bakarkuda, Tehsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Kaushal S/o Shri Ghanaram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bakarkuda, Tehsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Rameshwar S/o Shri Ghanaram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bakarkuda, Tehsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Devendra Kumar S/o Kaushal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bakarkuda, Tehsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate 2 For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order 07.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the C.G. Board of Revenue Bilaspur (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to clear the encroachment made by the respondent no. 6 to 9 and further be pleased to restore the right to access of the petitioner. 10.3 To Kindly grant any other relief(s), writ(s) , order(s) or direction(s) which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. ” 3. I have perused the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 and the records available. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error or any illegality in the impugned order. Also, the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India which is 3 not maintainable. 4. Considering the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 560 of 2022 (Girdhari Vs. Bhondu @ Barati & Ors.) Para 21 of the said judgment is held as under: “21. Returning to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition preferred by the appellant herein in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code against which the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As discussed herein-above, it is quite vivid that the Board of Revenue has been conferred with the status of Court by virtue of Section 31 of the Code and furthermore, the Board of Revenue has also been conferred with the inherent jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Code which is akin to Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code which is a power conferred upon the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, against the order of Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction only and only a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable and the decision relied upon by learned counsel appearing on 4 behalf of the appellant in the matter of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (supra) in which learned Single Judge has held that Board of Revenue is not a Civil Court, it is a revenue authority established under the Code, cannot be held to be laying down good and correct law in view of the discussion made herein and in view of Sections 31 and 32 of the Code which confer status of a Court upon the Board of Revenue. In that view of the matter, the writ petition preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 4 against the revisional order of Board of Revenue was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, by virtue of proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act of 2006, writ appeal is expressly barred.” 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised in this writ petition, submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, and further considering the judgment passed in Girdhari (supra), the present petition is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima