1 2026:CGHC:6128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1158 of 2025 1 - Smt. Annu Shukla W/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar Shukla Aged About 61 Years R/o M I G- 850, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pranjal Shukla S/o Rajesh Shukla R/o Rosewood 60, Housing Board Colony, Boriyakal, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Parth Shukla S/o Rajesh Shukla R/o Rosewood 60, Housing Board Colony, Boriyakal, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 03.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 29/8/2025 (Annexure P- 1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Petitioner to adduce evidence and proceed in accordance with law. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may pass any order in the interest of justice in favor of the Petitioner toward finding of the truth.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property involved in the present writ petition comprises land bearing Khasra Nos. 28/1, 28/2, 52, 152, 153/2, 160, 161/2, 163/1 and 163/2 admeasuring a total area of 2.614 hectares situated at Village Guma P.H. No. 32, Tahsil Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.). HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.02.07 11:27:13 +0530 2 The said property was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner’s husband late Dinesh Kumar Shukla. It is further submitted that after the death of late Dinesh Kumar Shukla, the petitioner being his legal heir got her name mutated in the revenue records by the Naib Tahsildar, Dharsiwa vide order dated 20.09.2021. Aggrieved by the said order of mutation, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “SDO”) which was registered as Case No. 202306111000172 (Annexure P/3). During the proceedings before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), the respondents led their evidence. However, when the petitioner sought permission to examine her witnesses, the same was denied by the SDO. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision which was rejected vide order dated 21.03.2025. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a further revision before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, which was registered as Case No. 325/A/16/year 2024–25 (Annexure P/4). He further submits that the Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 21.03.2025, permitting the petitioner to lead evidence by filing an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC). Challenging the said order, the respondents herein preferred another revision before the Board of Revenue,which was registered as Case No. RN/14/R-A-6/155/2025. The said revision was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide the impugned order. He submits that once the SDO (Revenue) was directed to permit the petitioner to lead evidence, the Board of Revenue committed a manifest error in allowing the revision filed by the respondents thereby depriving the petitioner of her right to lead evidence. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. 3. Opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue are justified and based on proper appreciation of facts and law. It is contended that the order passed by the SDO 3 (Revenue) was legal and valid and the same having been affirmed by the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. From the records, it appears that the suit property was initially recorded in the name of late Dinesh Kumar Shukla. After his death, the petitioner, being his wife and legal heir, got her name recorded in the revenue records. The dispute arose when respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed title over the suit property on the strength of a will alleged to have been executed by late Dinesh Kumar Shukla in their favour. It further appears from the record that the SDO (Revenue) rejected the petitioner’s application to lead evidence. The said order was set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 02.04.2025. However, the same was again set aside by the Board of Revenue vide the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P/1). 6. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the dispute with regard to title is still pending adjudication before the SDO (Revenue), this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties should not be deprived of an opportunity to put forth their respective cases. Denial of an opportunity to lead evidence would result in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to lead her evidence whereafter the SDO (Revenue) shall decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari