1 2026:CGHC:19517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1620 of 2026 1 - Rajan S/o Vargis Aged About 77 Years R/o In Front Of A M S Hospital, Tatibandh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Devlopment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Vina Sahu Sarpannch, Gram Panchayat Bakma, Tahsil Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Wasim Miyan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 28.04.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revision Case No. 151/A-89/2017-18, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the orders passed by the subordinate authorities have been affirmed. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Act against respondent No.5 (Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bakma), alleging misuse of official position and illegal demolition of the boundary wall/fencing erected over the petitioner’s land bearing Khasra No. 11 admeasuring 1.480 hectare. The said application was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mahasamund vide order dated 28.12.2017 holding that no misconduct on the part of the Sarpanch was made out. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Collector, Mahasamund vide order dated 26.04.2018. Thereafter, the revision preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Raipur 3 Division vide impugned order dated 16.12.2025, affirming the findings recorded by the authorities below. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and may kindly be pleased to quashed the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 2 and may kindly be direct the respondent austerities to allow the application filed by the petitioner under section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and take action against the respondent no. 5 under the Act. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and may kindly be pleased to quashed the order dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent no. 3 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and may kindly be pleased to quashed the order dated 28.12.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the SDO (Revenue), Mahasamund. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that respondent No.5 has misused her 4 position as Sarpanch and has illegally caused damage to the petitioner’s property by removing fencing with the help of machinery. It is further submitted that the authorities below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence and have dismissed the application without proper inquiry, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, submits that the authorities have concurrently recorded findings of fact to the effect that no personal misconduct on the part of respondent No.5 is established and that the action, if any, was taken on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the authorities are based on proper appreciation of material available on record and do not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedies of appeal and revision, and all the authorities have concurrently held that no case of misconduct under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Act is made out against respondent No.5. The findings recorded are essentially findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. 5 8. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse or suffering from patent illegality. In the present case, no such ground is made out. 9. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.12.2025. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha