1 2026:CGHC:4512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 98 of 2026 1 - Suritram S/o Late Panditram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Banipathar, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhabilal S/o Jageshwar R/o Kalmi Tahsil Kharsiya, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravilal S/o Jageshwar R/o Village Banipathar, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhotelal @ Kavilal R/o Village Banipathar, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Jagatram (Dead) S/o Late Kartikram, Through Lrs Nil 4.1 - Panimati W/o Jagatram R/o Village Banipathar Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4.2 - Pyarelal S/o Late Jagatram R/o Village Banipathar Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4.3 - Itwarin D/o Late Jagatram At Present R/o Village Pota, Tahsil Malkharouda, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh 4.4 - Mangali Bai D/o Late Jagatram R/o Village Suhai, Tahsil Gharghoda District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4.5 - Nankibai D/o Late Jagatram R/o Village Banipathar Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgah 4.6 - Gudiya D/o Late Jagatram R/o Village Banipathar Tahsil Kharsiya , District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Meghulal S/o Late Kartikram R/o Village Ranisagar, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Budgoram S/o Late Kartik R/o Village Sero, Tahsil Malkharouda District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh 7 - Gopichand S/o Late Kartikram R/o Village Banipathar, Tahsil Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.01.28 16:59:23 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 27.01.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Case No. RN/113/R/A-6/37/2016 relating to Village Banipathar, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). By the impugned order, the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code of 1959”) was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed property involved in the present writ petition comprises portions of Khasra No. 140 admeasuring 0.40 hectare, Khasra No. 267/1 admeasuring 3.90 hectares, Khasra No. 326 admeasuring 0.78 hectare, Khasra No. 500 admeasuring 0.50 hectare, Khasra No. 504 admeasuring 0.25 hectare, Khasra No. 532 admeasuring 1.50 hectares, and Khasra No. 168/610/1 admeasuring 1.53 hectares, total seven khasras measuring 8.86 hectares situated at Village Banipathar, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). 4. He submits that as per the record of rights for the year 1924–25, the said land was recorded in the name of Karmu son of Makaru resident of Village Banipathar, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) who was the grandfather of the petitioner. It is further contended that the land was given for cultivation for a period of seven years to one Sukhiram Rawat and after his death to one Bodlo. After the death of Bodlo who died issueless, the name of his wife 3 Radhin Bai was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1980. Upon the death of Radhin Bai, the names of her brother-in-law and other relatives were recorded in the revenue records on 16.02.1981 by the Tahsildar, allegedly without giving any intimation to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner challenged the said mutation before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Kharsiya which was registered as Revenue Case No. 2/A-6/2010-11. The appeal filed under Section 44(1) of the Code of 1959 was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as being barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.), registered as Revenue Case No. 85/A-6/2014-15 which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which too was dismissed by the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel submits that the revenue authorities failed to consider that the persons whose names were recorded in the revenue records are not the legal heirs or descendants of deceased Karmu. It is further submitted that proper notice was not issued to the petitioner prior to recording the said mutations. According to the petitioner being a descendant of Karmu, he is entitled to have his name recorded in the revenue records. Therefore, the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer deserve to be set aside. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. According to the petitioner, the suit land was recorded in the name of Karmu; however, no documentary evidence has been filed before this Court to substantiate the said claim. From the perusal of the impugned order and the order passed by the Commissioner, it appears that the mutation in favour of the private respondents was effected sometime in the year 1980. The challenge 4 to the said revenue entries was made for the first time in the year 2010 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. There is, therefore, an apparent delay of about 30 years in assailing the mutation entries. 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue have all taken note of this inordinate delay and upon due consideration have rejected the appeal and the revision petition. In the opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the revenue authorities are based upon proper appreciation of facts and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy to establish his title or claim in accordance with law, if so desire. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari