1 2025:CGHC:61752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6600 of 2025 1 - Khorbahara Singh Thakur S/o Late Bisahuram Thakur Aged About 76 Years R/o Village - Tekari, Post - Mandar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ghasiya Singh Thakur S/o Late Bisahuram Thakur Aged About 66 Years R/o Village - Tekari, Post - Mandar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Collector Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Netram Thakur S/o Late Bisahuram Thakur Aged About 64 Years R/o Village - Tekari, Post - Mandar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Appellant) 4 - Narayan Thakur S/o Late Bisahuram Thakur Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Tekari, Post - Mandar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Appellant) 5 - Peelaram Singh Thakur S/o Late Bisahu Ram Thakur Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Tekari, Post - Mandar, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Appellant) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondents no. 1 & 2 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.12.23 10:42:47 +0530 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 19 /12/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 and pleased to held that the appeal filed before the Additional Collector is not maintainable and according quash the proceedings pending before the Additional Collector, Raipur in Appeal Case no. 202507113000027/A-12, Year 2024-2025 in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioners. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. learned Additional Collector, Raipur whereby Additional Collector while considering the appeal filed under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 by private respondents have dismissed the interim application filed by petitioners herein raising objection with regard to maintainability of appeal. 3 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that land recorded in the name of petitioners as also respondents part of which was subject matter of acquisition by Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur. Land acquisition proceedings was initiated in the year 2007, however, petitioners finding that their land has been acquired and they have not been shown as persons to be compensated they have submitted an application before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer which was decided vide order dated 07.03.2020 and pursuant to report submitted by Naib Tehsildar there was a direction to correct revenue records. The order of Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) directing correction of revenue record was put to challenge by private respondents initially before the Commissioner, however, considering that appeal is filed under Section 44(1) of the Code of 1959 against the Order of Sub Divisional Officer(Revneue) matter was sent to Additional Collector and accordingly, the proceeding is pending before the Additional Collector. He further submits that when petitioners appeared before the Additional Collector have raised an objection with regard to maintainability of appeal which was dismissed by impugned order and now the case is fixed for final arguments. He also submits that order is passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in the capacity of Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, no appeal will lie under Land Revenue Code, 1959. Learned appellate authority i.e. Additional Collector committed an error by dismissing the objection raised in this regard. He lastly submits that order of Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) is already under challenge in civil suit and, therefore, also the appeal would 4 not lie and Collector is not having any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal till the decision of Civil Suit. 4. Learned counsel for State supports the impugned award passed by the Collector. 5. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 6. Undisputedly, the land recorded in joint name of petitioners and the private respondents was subject matter of acquisition and, thereafter, the petitioners herein moved an application before Land Acquisition Officer that compensation as computed in land acquisition proceedings be segregated and petitioners may also be paid compensation of land bearing Khasra No. 290/1. Based on application submitted by petitioners Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer have sent the application of petitioners herein to Naib Tahsildar and accordingly, the Naib Tahsildar has passed an order on 04.10.2019 wherein the Naib Tahsildar has proposed that land recorded in name of Narayan Singh Thakur, Netram Singh Thakur and Peelaram Singh Thakur to be reduced from their Khasra numbers recorded in their name and to be added in the Khasra No. 290/1 recorded in the name of Khorbahara Singh Thakur. Based on report/proceedings of Naib Tahsildar, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer has passed an order for initiating proceedings pursuant to report of Naib Tahsildar. 7. From the facts of the case, it is appearing that grievance of petitioners herein is with regard to excess land recorded in the 5 name of private respondents and if that be so the Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) in the capacity of Land Acquisition Officer was not having any jurisdiction to consider such a grievance more so when the claim of petitioners herein are based on pursuant to earlier partition as stated by counsel for petitioners in the year 1972. It appears that Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has considered application not in capacity of Land Acquisition Officer but as Revenue Officer, therefore, in the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for petitioners, that Additional Collector is not having any jurisdiction to entertain appeal filed under Section 44(1) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 is not sustainable. 8. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners that civil suit is pending and therefore, Revenue Officials could not have entertained the proceedings, it is not the case, that petitioners have filed any civil suit and any application in their behalf seeking any injunction, is pending, in fact, according to counsel for petitioners, civil suit is filed by a private respondents and further the proceedings pending before the Additional Collector is not with regard to touching with claim of title but with regard to the jurisdiction of authority for directing correction of revenue interest. 9. When once Revenue Officer exercised the jurisdiction and powers, under the Land Revenue Code then appeal and revision is to be filed as provided under the Code of 1959. In the Code of 1959 any order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is appealable before superior authority that is Additional Collector / Collector under Section 44(1) of the Code of 1959. 6 10. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners, accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza Judge