1 2026:CGHC:24973 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1689 of 2023 Abbas Khan S/o Late Abdul Rashid Khan, Aged About 62 Years R/o. Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner, Surguja, Division, Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sugriv S/o Kauleshwar, Aged About 64 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o. Beside State Bank, Branch Collectorate, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sukhmaniya Wd/o Shivaram Aged About 69 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o. Beside State Bank, Branch Collectorate, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 6 - Guddu S/o Late Radhe, Aged About 39 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o. Beside State Bank, Branch Collectorate, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 7 - Rajesh Choubey S/o Late Vishwanath, Aged About 44 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o. Beside State Bank, Branch Collectorate, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 8 - Fuleshwari W/o Late Vishwanath, Aged About 74 Years Caste Bramhan, R/o. Beside State Bank, Branch Collectorate, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.19 17:56:29 +0530 2 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Surguja, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.7 : Ms. Shalini Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 19.06.2026 1 By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No. R.N./16/R/A-23/166/2017 [Jagannath] (Now Deceased) v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment in the pending revision proceedings has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not a party before the subordinate revenue authorities and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be impleaded for the first time in the revision proceedings. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 3 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ / or writs/order/ or orders / to quashed the order dated 18.01.2023, (Annexure P/1), passed by the board of revenue Chhattisgarh, and further be pleased to allow the application under order 01, Rule 10 of CPC, filed by the petitioner, in the ends of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a substantial interest in the subject property and, therefore, his presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the revision pending before the Board of Revenue. It is contended that the Board of Revenue has failed to consider the nature of the petitioner's interest and has mechanically rejected the application solely on the ground that he was not a party before the authorities below. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3 Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned order and submits that the revision before the Board of Revenue arises out of proceedings between parties who had contested the matter before the subordinate authorities. The petitioner was admittedly not a party to any of the proceedings before the authorities below. 4 Therefore, the Board of Revenue has rightly declined to entertain his application for impleadment at the revisional stage. It is further submitted that if the petitioner claims any independent right, title or interest in the property, he is free to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law. 4 Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that the petitioner was never a party before the authorities below and, therefore, the application for impleadment has rightly been rejected by the Board of Revenue. It is submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the original authority, the appellate authority or the revisional authority from which the impugned revision arises. The revision pending before the Board of Revenue is directed against orders passed between parties who had participated in the proceedings before the subordinate revenue authorities. The scope of a revisional proceeding is ordinarily confined to examination of the legality, propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities on the basis of the record available before them. 5 7 The petitioner seeks impleadment in the revision on the ground that he has an interest in the subject property. However, a person claiming an independent right or interest in the property cannot, as a matter of course, seek impleadment in a pending revision when he was never a party to the proceedings before the authorities whose orders are under challenge. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be converted into a forum for adjudication of fresh claims of third parties who were not before the subordinate authorities. 8 The Board of Revenue, while rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not a party before the subordinate courts and, therefore, his impleadment in the revision proceedings was not warranted. This Court does not find the said view to be either perverse or contrary to any settled principle of law warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 9 It is well settled that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised sparingly and only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest perversity or gross miscarriage of justice. The impugned order does not suffer from any such infirmity. The Board of Revenue has exercised its discretion upon consideration of the facts of the case and has assigned reasons for declining the prayer for impleadment. 10 Furthermore, rejection of the petitioner's application for impleadment does not determine or extinguish any independent 6 right, if otherwise available to him under law. In the event the petitioner claims any independent right, title or interest in respect of the property in question, it shall be open for him to avail such remedy as may be permissible under law before the competent forum. 11 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference with the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur is made out. 12 Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh