1 2025:CGHC:3263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 540 of 2018 1 - Rangu Sao, son of Late Shri Jadu Sao, aged about 75 years, R/o Village Amtahi, Tahsil Samri, District Balrampur – Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh --- Dead, Deleted Vide Order Dt. 7-1-2020, --- Through Legal Representative: 1.1 - Smt. Kunti Sao Wd/o Late Rangu Sao Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Amtahi , Tahsil Samari, District - Balrampur – Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, Through The President District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Surguja Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Tirith Raj Agrawal The Than Sub Divisional Officer Ambikapur, District Surguja, Presently Posted At Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Keshav Prasad Verma, Deputy Registrar Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Jagarnath Verma The Than Tahsildar Ambikapur, Presently Posted At Abhanupr District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Gaya Ram Patwari Village Sargawan Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.01.30 17:41:14 +0530 2 District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Meena Singh, Revenue Inspector, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Narendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Raj Bhagat Agrawal Kharsiya Road Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Netu Verma W/o Vinay Verma, R/o Manipur, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 11 - Ram Ratan, S/o Vishwanath Kushwaha, R/o Village Sargawan, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 12 - Smt. Geeta Yadav, S/o Lt. Bhagwat Yadav, R/o Sargawan, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 13 - Ganesh Yadav S/o Lt. Bhagwat Yadav, R/o Village Sargawan, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For LR of Deceased Petitioner : Shri V.K. Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No.10 : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Smt. Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.11 to 13 : Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/01/2025 1. The brief facts of the case inter alia are that the deceased petitioner was a permanent resident of village Amtahi. Tahsil Samri, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G) which is one of the Naxalite affected area. On 21.12.2005 the Naxalites had set the house of the petitioner on fire, therefore, he had requested before the Collector, Surguja for exchange and allotment of the land 3 under the rehabilitation policy of the State Government and in turn after following the due process of law respondent No.3 Collector, Surguja allotted land bearing Khasra No. 376 measuring area 1.00 hec. and Khasra No. 377 measuring area 0.74 hec. total area 1.74 hec. and has acquired the land of the petitioner total area 35 acres. situated at village Amtahi vide order dated 15.11.2011. After the allotment/exchange of the land, the petitioner started cultivation on the said land, but, in the meantime, respondents No.11, 12 & 13, who have no locus to challenge the allotment order, moved a review application before respondent No.3 and in turn respondent No.3 passed order on 15.05.2012 whereby set aside the order dated 15.11.2011 by recalling his earlier order. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2012, the petitioner approached before respondent No.2 who in turn after considering the facts and grounds raised by the petitioner passed order on 29.04.2016 whereby set aside the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by respondent No.3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 29.04.2016, the Collector, Surguja has filed a revision before respondent No.1 who in turn passed the impugned order vide Annexure P/1 whereby set aside the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 and confirmed the order dated 15.05.2012 passed by respondent No. 3. 2. Following reliefs have been sought in the petition: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notices to the respondent returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2017 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the respondent no.1. 10.3 Any other relief the Hon'ble court gives fit and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the legal representative of the deceased petitioner, at the outset, submits that the impugned order dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure P1) is liable to be set aside only on the ground that it has been passed by an incompetent officer against the order dated 29.4.2016 (Annexure P5) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Surguja Division. The Collector has filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and since it has been filed by the Collector himself, the Board of Revenue without considering this aspect that the Board of Revenue is having no authority to entertain the revision of the Collector, has entertained the revision and has passed a detailed order holding him to be the authority for passing the order. It is very much surprising to see that the Board of Revenue has ignored the provisions contained in Revenue Book Circular according to which against the order passed by the Commissioner a revision would lie before the State Government under Section 3 of Part 4 of the Revenue Book Circular. Relevant provision as contained in the Revenue Book Circular reads thus: “Hkkx ikap & vihy vkSj fuxjkuh dafMdk 30- ¼1½ ---------- ¼3½ vk;qDr }kjk vihy esa ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns’k ds fo:) fuxjkuh; jkT; 'kklu dks dh tk ldsxhA” 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that since the aforesaid issue has not been raised in the writ petition, therefore, they could not answer it in the return. 5 5. Looking to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, though there are objections from the respondents that the impugned order dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure P1) has rightly been passed, but, considering the Revenue Book Circular and the provisions contained therein, I am of the opinion that the Board of Revenue was not having jurisdiction and competency to pass the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside. However, the State Government through the Collector is having liberty to approach before the State Government. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh