1 2026:CGHC:9406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 188 of 2026 1 - Baratu S/o Ramlal Aged About 61 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village - Bundiya, P.S. Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhertu S/o Ramlal Aged About 59 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village - Bundiya, P.S. Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jethu S/o Ramlal Aged About 57 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village - Bundiya, P.S. Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nayab Tehsildar Bhatgaon, Tehsil - Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Lalmet W/o Chainsai Aged About 32 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village - Bundiya, Police Station - Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1 to 4/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Deputy Govt.Advocate For Res. No. 5 : Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 16/02/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue in case No. RN/26/R/A - 70/107/2025 by which the revision petition filed by the petition under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth “Code, 1959”} and an application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 for grant of stay alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 were rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject property in this writ petition is comprising a piece of Khasra Nos. 1228/3, 1251, 1251, 1279/2, 1279/3, 1736, 1439, total area 1.910 hectare situated at village Bundia, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajput (C.G.). It is submitted that respondent No. 5 claiming himself to be and owner and title holder of the subject property filed an application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 before Naib Tahsildar, Bhatgaon, District Surajpur (C.G.). The petitioners were noticed to that application and evidence of respondent No. 5 was recorded. However, learned Tahsildar, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur without giving any proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 5, passed an order dated 11.04.2022 in Revenue Case No. /15A-70/2014-15 and directed the petitioner to evict the subject property. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Bhaiyathan, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.), which was registered as Revenue Case No. 202206260400004/A-70/2021-22. The SDO (Revenue), Bhaiyathan dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners affirming the order passed by Tahsildar vide order dated 04.07.2022 (Annexure P-6). Against which, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the 3 Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur. The said appeal was registered as Revenue Case No. 202207960100027/A-70/2021-22 and learned Commissioner also dismissed the second appeal vide its order dated 17.10.2024. Questioning the same, the petitioners preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue alongwith an application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 for grant of stay & Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. By the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, all the applications including revision petition were dismissed by the Board of Revenue. He further submits that petitioners were not afforded proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 5. Until & unless, the petitioners are given an opportunity to cross-examine them, the factual scenario would have not been brought on record by the petitioners. Thus, the revenue authorities right from Tahsildar, till Board of Revenue committed manifest error of law in rejecting the appeals / revisions of the petitioners. He next submits that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 5. It is further submitted that application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 could have been filed within two years from the date of possession and in the case in hand, the petitioners, being in possession of the property in question at the relevant point of time, the application is not filed by barred by limitation. Thus, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Tahsildar permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 5. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State / respondents No. 1 to 4 would submit that the dispute is between petitioners and respondent No. 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would submit that the case, which has been projected by the petitioner, is absolutely false and 4 fictitious. He submits that proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 5 was granted to the petitioner, but the petitioner choose not to cross-examine the witnesses and tried to linger on the proceedings before Tahsildar on one pretext or the other, thus, it cannot be said that proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 5 has not been granted to the petitioners. Apart from this, he submits that period of limitation of two years has been amended subsequently, as such, the application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 is within limitation. He submits that all the revenue authorities below have given categorical finding of fact while rejecting the appeals/ revisions filed by the petitioners, however, there is no document to suggest that the petitioners have any interest or title over the subject property, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. First contention raised by the petitioners is that the proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 5 has not been granted to the petitioners. Perusal of the return filed by respondent No. 5 would indicate that proceedings before Naib Tahsildar was conducted in accordance with law. It has been stated that the petitioners did not avail themselves of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses despite being present and instead adopted the delaying tactics. Thus, it cannot be said that proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent No. 5 was not granted to the petitioners. Apart from this, there is no cogent material available on record to suggest that petitioners have any interest or tittle over the subject property. The finding in this regard has been affirmed by Sub Divisional Officer, Commissioner and then the Board of Revenue. 5 7. The second contention with regard to limitation in filing the application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 is liable to be rejected, as there is categorical finding recorded by the Board of Revenue that the requirement to submit an application under Section 250 of the Code within two years has been removed by Amendment Act, 2022 with effect from 04.05.2022. Thus, this submission is also not tenable. As such, this court is of the opinion that finding recorded by Naib Tahsildar, which has duly been affirmed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Commissioner and Board of Revenue, is a finding of fact based on material available on record, which do not call for any interference of this Court. 8. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. 9. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand (s) disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.26 18:12:47 +0530