Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2026:CGHC:20898
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2219 of 2022 Rikhiram S/o Kunwar Singh Sahu, Aged About 53 Years R/o Bodal, Tehsil-Gundardehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. - Rakhi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - C.G. Board Of Revenue, Through The Secretary, C.G. Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court at Raipur) 3 - Additional Commissioner, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Balod, Civil and Revenue District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gundardehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.05.07 13:48:39 +0530
2 6 - Tahsildar Gundardehi,, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 7 - Rohit Kumar, S/o Shri Guharam Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bodal, Tahsil Gundardehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2143 of 2022 Rikhiram S/o Kunwar Singh Sahu, Aged About 53 Years R/o Bodal, Tehsil - Gundardehi, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. - Rakhi,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - C.G. Board Of Revenue, Through The Secretary, C.G. Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court At Raipur) 3 - Additional Commissioner, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Balod, Civil And Revenue District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gundardehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 6 - Tahsildar, Gundardehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
3 7 - Rohit Kumar, S/o Shri Guharam Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bodal, Tahsil Gundardehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s) (Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RL Rajak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer,
S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
05/05/2026
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner in WPC No.2219/2022 has prayed for the following reliefs. 10.1 To call for the entire records of the present case.
10.2. To issue the writ of MANDAMUS. or any other appropriate writ setting aside the impugned
order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) by holding the same to be illegal, in the interest of justice.
10.3. To hold that petitioner has legal possession over land bearing khasra no. 747/2 area 0.17 hectare situated at village Bodal, Tahsil Gundardehi, District Balod (C.G.) i.e. the subject land.
10.4. To pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice. The petitioner in WPC No.2143/2022 has prayed for the following reliefs : 10.1 To call for the entire records of the present case.
4
10.2. To issue the writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ setting aside the impugned
order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) by holding the same to be illegal, in the interest of justice.
10.3. To hold that petitioner has legal possession over land bearing khasra no. 747/1 area 0.16 hectare situated at village Bodal, Tahsil Gundardehi, District Balod (C.G.) i.e. the subject land.
10.4. To pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.
3. It is reported that respondent No.7 has died. Earlier, Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 had sought time to file suitable application in this regard; however, he failed to do so.
4. It submitted that the subject order passed by the Board of Revenue has already been complied with and the possession has been restored in favour of respondent No.7; as such, the petition has become infructuous.
5. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not having any instructions from the concerned petitioner and as such, he is unable to submit any submissions in this regard.
6. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. However, if any grievance still subsists, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appropriate petition/application in accordance with law. Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay