1 2025:CGHC:56406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 358 of 2025 1 - Devdas S/o Banaudas Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Birjhabhata, Village- Raitum Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Derhinbai Ganda D/o Jagatram Ganda Aged About 71 Years Caste- Ganda (Sc) R/o Village Panchayat Raitum, Patwari Halka No.10, Ra. Ni.M Patewa, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Pin- 943551 (Writ Petitioner) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, State Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492002 (Respondent No.1) 3 - Collector Mahasamund In The Office Of The Collectorate Mahasamund, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Pin- 493445 (Respondent No.2) 4 - Tahsildar Mahasamund In The Office Of The Tahsildar Mahasamund, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Pin- 493445 (Respondent No.3) 5 - Nayab Tahsildar Up- Tahsil Patewa Mahasamund In The Office Of The Nayab Tahsildar Up-Tahsil Patewa Mahasamund Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Pin- 493445 (Respondent No.4) 6 - Chief Secretary General Administrative Department State Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.5) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 19/11/2025 1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1742 of 2025 whereby this Court disposed of the writ Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 petition as a result of that order, the petitioner filed this instant review petition for partly modification of the order impugned herein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/reviewer submits that the Writ Petitioner (Respondent No. 1) has failed to approach this Court with clean hands, and the petition is based on a series of false and misleading assertions. The Writ Petitioner claims that her family has been cultivating land for over a century and has held it as a traditional right passed down through generations. However, the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner in support of these claims contains materially false statements. Specifically, the claim that she and her forefathers have been cultivating the land for more than 100 years is demonstrably false. The Writ Petitioner is in fact a retired teacher who has never resided in the village of Raitum, nor has she served as the village Kotwar, contrary to what has been asserted in the Writ Petition. It is also pertinent to note that her father, Jagatram Ganda, who served as Kotwar, passed away long ago, and the Review Petitioner, not the Writ Petitioner, was appointed as the village Kotwar on 23.01.2007. The Writ Petition challenges the ex-parte order passed by the Respondent No. 5, Naib Tahsildar, on 14.07.2023, which allowed the Review Petitioner’s name to be recorded in relation to the disputed land. This order was later set aside by this Court on 10.06.2024 in W.P. (C)./3764/2023 due to the violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted to the Naib Tahsildar for a fresh 3 order with a clear directive to provide a hearing to both parties. Following this, a final order was passed on 28.01.2025, recording the name of the Review Petitioner over the subject land. The Writ Petitioner, despite being fully aware of the final order passed by the Naib Tahsildar on 28.01.2025, has, in bad faith, filed the present Writ Petition on 29.03.2025 (W.P.(C)./1742/2025), suppressing crucial facts, including the fact that the final order had already been passed by Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner has attempted to mislead this Court by misrepresenting the factual matrix, which amounts to material suppression. Moreover, the Writ Petitioner failed to implead the Review Petitioner as a party to the proceedings, despite the fact that the entire proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Review Petitioner, as evidenced by the order sheet dated 03.07.2023. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner had an alternate, efficacious remedy available to challenge the final order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, but instead of utilizing this remedy, the Petitioner chose to approach this Court, raising issues that should have been addressed before the Naib Tahsildar. This Court, in its earlier orders, has consistently directed that the Naib Tahsildar be the appropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute in question. It is clear that the Writ Petitioner is attempting to bypass the proper legal procedure by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court without adhering to the principles of natural justice or following due process. The Writ Petitioner’s actions also contravene established principles of law. The Review Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner has 4 deliberately filed multiple Writ Petitions, each time raising new grounds and failing to raise issues in the appropriate forum. This continuous approach, filing petitions before this Court without following the proper legal procedure, is an abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the Writ Petitioner has failed to disclose all relevant facts and has not made the Review Petitioner a party to the proceedings, thus violating the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar on 28.01.2025 was not within the knowledge of the respondent at the time of filing the Writ Petition. The respondent, in good faith, had no intention of suppressing any material facts. The contention raised by the petitioner that there was suppression of facts is unfounded and lacks merit. While it is true that the earlier ex-parte order dated 14.07.2023 was set aside by this Court, the final order dated 28.01.2025 was not immediately brought to the respondents' attention, and there was no deliberate attempt to conceal this from the Court. The submission that the Writ Petitioner failed to implead the Review Petitioner as a party is due to a lack of knowledge of the final order at the relevant time. 4. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a review of the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Writ 5 Petition (C) No. 1742 of 2025. In the said order, this Court disposed of the writ petition, which led to the filing of the instant review petition for partial modification of the order. 6. Upon perusal of the relevant records and arguments advanced by the parties, it is observed that by the time the order dated 25.06.2025 was passed by this Court, the Naib Tahsildar had already completed the proceedings and passed a final order on 28.01.2025, recording the name of the Review Petitioner over the disputed land. 7. Given that the Naib Tahsildar had already passed the final order on 28.01.2025, which disposed of the matter at hand, there was no necessity for the Naib Tahsildar to pass any order in pursuance of the order dated 25.06.2025. Therefore, the direction issued in paragraph 11 of the order dated 25.06.2025, directing the Naib Tahsildar to pass a appropriate order, is redundant. This direction does not need to be acted upon as the dispute had already been adjudicated by the Naib Tahsildar through the order passed on 28.01.2025. 8. The parties to this review petition, including the present petitioner who was not made a party to the original writ petition, are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the appropriate forum, if they wish to challenge the final order passed by the Naib Tahsildar. This Court, in the earlier orders, has directed that the Naib Tahsildar is the appropriate forum for adjudicating the 6 dispute. As such, the proper legal course for the parties is to approach the relevant authorities for any relief they seek in respect of the final order passed on 28.01.2025. 9. In light of the above findings, the review petition is allowed to the extent that the direction issued in paragraph 11 of the order dated 25.06.2025 is rendered redundant and need not be acted upon. The review is granted to that limited extent. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE