1 2026:CGHC:19278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1162 of 2022 1 - Jagdish Bansal S/o Ramphal Agrawal, Aged About 63 Years R/o Bansal Apartment Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 9300624445 2 - Vikas Agrawal, S/o Kapurchand Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sakti, Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Collector, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgrh. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 5 - Vishnudayal, Roopchand Agrawal R/o Village And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondents No. 5 :- Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetarpal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 27.04.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 04.05.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 – Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, in Revision Case No. 18/B-121/2019-2020, whereby the revenue map and records relating to the land bearing Khasra No. 205 have been directed to be corrected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are owners and in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 206 situated at Village Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, which was purchased through registered sale deeds. The respondent No. 5 is owner of adjoining land bearing Khasra No. 205. It is not in dispute that earlier proceedings under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code were initiated at the instance of respondent No. 5, 3 wherein the competent authority had already adjudicated the dispute vide orders dated 09.09.2015 and 18.01.2017, directing enquiry regarding manipulation of map and further action in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, enquiry was conducted and the Tahsildar submitted report, on the basis of which the Additional Collector passed order dated 26.03.2018 correcting the map and revenue record. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter respondent No. 5, by suppressing the aforesaid material facts and earlier adjudication, again approached the Commissioner, who without having jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Code, passed the impugned order dated 04.05.2020. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order dated 04.05.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-P/1) and further be please to direct to the respondent no. 5 to restore the revenue record as per the Misal Map and record. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondent no. 1 to constitute the SIT (Special Inquiry Team) for illegal action of the respondent no. 2 & 3. 4 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 04.05.2020 is non est in the eyes of law, as the respondent No. 2 – Commissioner had no jurisdiction or authority to entertain or decide the matter under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 5 has deliberately suppressed the material fact that the issue relating to correction of map and revenue records had already been adjudicated by the competent authority, i.e., the Commissioner/Additional Collector, vide orders dated 09.09.2015 and 18.01.2017, wherein it was categorically held that there were anomalies in the records and directions were issued for correction after proper enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the said orders, enquiry was conducted and the Additional Collector passed order dated 26.03.2018, whereby the revenue map and possession were duly corrected in accordance with law. It is contended that by concealing these material facts, respondent No. 5 obtained the impugned order from the Commissioner, who otherwise lacked jurisdiction and competency to pass such order. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated by suppression of material facts as well as lack of jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 5 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that respondent No. 5 has purchased the property through a registered sale deed and, therefore, is entitled to seek correction of the revenue records. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner as well as the Tahsildar is in accordance with law. However, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 could not dispute the fact that the earlier orders dated 09.09.2015 and 18.01.2017 passed by the competent authority were not brought to the notice of the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. 6. Learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the same has been passed on the basis of material available on record. However, it is fairly submitted that the aspect relating to earlier adjudication of the dispute was not considered by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the dispute relating to correction of revenue map and records had already been adjudicated by the competent authority vide orders dated 09.09.2015 and 18.01.2017, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. It further appears that the said orders had attained finality and pursuant thereto, necessary enquiry was 6 conducted and order dated 26.03.2018 was passed correcting the revenue record. However, the aforesaid material facts were not disclosed by respondent No. 5 before the Commissioner and by suppressing the same, the impugned order dated 04.05.2020 has been obtained. It is also apparent that the Commissioner was not competent to exercise jurisdiction under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code in the manner done in the present case. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order is vitiated on account of suppression of material facts as well as lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.05.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. 10. The writ petition is allowed. 11. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha