1 2025:CGHC:55478 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4804 of 2025 1 - M/s Shreem Engineer And Builders Pvt Ltd Through Director Mr. Abhay Tripathi, S/o Late Kripa Shankar Tripathi Age- 59 Year R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - Irshad Khan S/o Late Abdul Hakim Aged About 50 Years R/o Dutta Colony, Namnakala, Police Station- Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, Tehsil Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Collector District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Neeraj Puri S/o Late Ratan Chand Puri Aged About 50 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 6 - Sita Puri W/o Late Ratan Chand Puri Aged About 75 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 7 - Neelam Puri D/o Late Ratan Chand Puri Aged About 48 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 8 - Barbarik Project Ltd Through Director Ramesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Sadhuram Agrawal Age- 58 Year R/o Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 9 - Shikha Singhal W/o Vikas Kumar Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 10 - Vikas Kumar Agrawal S/o Roshan Lal Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 11 - Sunita Devi W/o Roshan Lal Agrawal Aged About 68 Years R/o BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.18 11:02:31 +0530 2 Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 12 - Ashish Garg S/o Ramkumar Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 13 - Abhishek Garg S/o Ramkumar Agrawal Aged About 42 Years R/o Brahma Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 14 - Maruti Nandan Mishra S/o Shiv Prasad Mishra, Aged About 62 Years R/o Sai Residency, Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For State/Respondents No.2 to 4 : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 13/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “i. Set-aside the order dated 6th August 2025 passed in RN/16/R/A-19(1)/198/2025 by Board of Revenue being non-maintainable. ii. Quash the Revision Case No.202504960100050/A- 19(1)/2024-25 pending before Respondent No.3 being without jurisdiction. iii. Pass any other relief/order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.1 is a competitor of petitioner firm being partner of Kalash Infra, who is also in the business of colonization. Petitioner had purchased the subject land. Other partner of Kalash Infra has made an objection against 3 execution of sale deed which was turned down vide order dated 27.08.2012. It is thereafter, respondent No.1 has filed another application before the Collector with prayer that suo-motu revision may be initiated against petitioner i.e. non-applicant therein by filing revision application on 21.06.2024 i.e. after lapse of about 12 years thereafter. He contended that he is not questioning the proceedings initiated by the Collector on the application submitted by respondent No.1 herein at this point of time, however, the Collector upon considering the merits of the application has dismissed the said application submitted by respondent No.1 vide its order dated 19.12.2024 observing that there is delay of about 58 years. The order of the Collector is put to challenge by respondent No.1 before Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur by way of filing revision application under Section 50 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In short ‘the Code of 1959’) and has obtained the interim order in his favour on the first date of hearing. After receipt of notice from the Court of Commissioner, petitioner submitted an application for vacating the interim order dated 16.04.2025 granted in favour of respondent No.1/applicant therein, which was considered on 12.06.2025. Commissioner after considering the application submitted by petitioner for vacating stay order, reply of respondent No.1 on the said application and hearing both the sides have set-aside the order dated 16.04.2025 and thereafter fixed the date of hearing on 22.07.2025 awaiting the records of Court of Collector. Respondent No.1 has challenged the interim order of Commissioner dated 12.06.2025 of vacating stay before the Board of Revenue again by filing revision and the Board of Revenue by impugned order dated 06.08.2025 has passed the order directing to 4 maintain status-quo for a period of one month, which is erroneous. As the order passed in revision cannot be further challenged in revision and in the facts of the case it would be third revision. Therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure P-13) dated 06.08.2025 be interdicted. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to maintainability of revision may not be correct. He contended that revision application filed before the Board of Revenue is against the interim order passed by the Commissioner in the revenue proceedings, therefore, under the Code of 1959, against the order not appealable, revision lies. Therefore, there is no error on the part of the respondent No.1 in approaching the Board of Revenue by filing revision against the interim order. He contended that challenge before the Board of Revenue in revision is that when Commissioner has already granted interim order in favour of respondent No.1 and called for the record then the Commissioner ought not to have set-aside the stay order without receipt of record and considering the merits of the claim of rival parties. He supports the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. This writ petition is filed, only challenging the interim order passed by Board of Revenue dated 06.08.2025, directing the parties to maintain status-quo for a period of one month. The order is dated 06.08.2025 and as of now more than one month has already been elapsed. 5 Further perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-13), would show that the Board of Revenue by the impugned order has also requisitioned the record of the Collector and the Commissioner, which means the proceedings pending before the Commissioner in revision, the original proceedings is held-up as of now and no hearing can be done in absence of record, which will not be in the interest of both the sides. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, it will be in the interest of both the sides if this writ petition is disposed of without entering into merits on the claim of the parties as it is to be decided by Commissioner in pending revision, maintaining the order of Board of Revenue of status-quo to be maintained by the both the sides till the revision application is decided by the Commissioner and to direct the Commissioner to dispose of the revision within specified time frame. 7. For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3/Commissioner to pass final order on the pending Revision Case No.202504960100050/A-19(1)/2024-25, in accordance with law granting opportunity of hearing to all the parties, expeditiously preferably within further period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The Board of Revenue is also directed to send back the records of the Commissioner and the Collector if received pursuant to the order dated 06.08.2025 expeditiously within period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6 9. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur forthwith for necessary action and compliance. 10. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any observation on the merits of the claim of either of the parties and it is for the Commissioner to decide the case on its own merits strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram