1 2026:CGHC:24613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2913 of 2026 1 - Satpal Singh Saluja S/o Late Shri Devendra Singh Saluja Aged About 47 Years R/o Behind Revenue Office, Civil Lines, Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Upkar Kesharwani S/o Shiv Shanker Kesharwani, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Moharpara, Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Sarguja Division, Distt. Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector/ District Magistrate, Distt. Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pritam Beck, Revenue Inspector, S/o Shri P Beck, R/o Choughada Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2918 of 2026 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.06.24 11:10:26 +0530 2 1 - Satpal Singh Saluja S/o Late Shri Devendra Singh Saluja, Aged About 47 Years R/o Behind Revenue Office, Civil Lines, Manendragarh, Dist.-Manendragarh- Chirmiri Bharatpur(C.G.) 2 - Upkar Kesharwani, S/o Shiv Shanker Kesharwani, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Moharpara, Manendragarh, Dist.-Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Dist- Ambikapur (C.G.) 3 - Collector/ District Magistrate, Dist-Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 - Surendrapal Singh Patwari, Presently Patwari Halka No. 18, Tahsil Bharatpur, Dist.- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/06/2026 1. The facts as well as the core issue involved in the captioned writ petitions being identical, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 2913/2026 is treated as the lead case to decide both the petitions. In the said petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : 3 10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of CERTIORARI setting aside the impugned order dated 02.06.2026 and 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the revenue proceeding of the courts below. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case, as canvassed by the petitioners, are that the petitioners made a complaint before the Collector/Respondent No.3 regarding irregularities and tampering with the revenue maps. It was alleged that the concerned revenue officers had prepared and were operating an unauthorized, parallel revenue maps, which constitutes serious misconduct. On receiving the complaint, the concerned Collector initiated an enquiry, issued notices to the concerned revenue officers, including respondent No.4 (concerned Revenue Inspector), and called for their explanations. Their statements were recorded and after affording a proper opportunity of being hearing, the Collector passed the order dated 17.7.2025 in Revenue Case No..202409330100020/A-89/21/2023-24, directing suspension of respondent No.4 and registration of FIR 4 against the concerned Revenue Officers. Further, a direction was made to submit all the three sheets of revenue maps in the record room and registration of FIR. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.2025, respondent No.4 and other revenue officers preferred separate departmental appeals before the Commissioner (Respondent No.2) without impleading the petitioners herein as parties. In the said appeal, the learned Commissioner granted interim protection vide order dated 28.7.2025 in their favour. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred WPC No.6684/2025 and other connected petitons before this Court against their non-impleadment and challenging the interim order passed in favour of the concerned Revenue Officers. This Court vide order dated 5.1.2026 disposed of the said petitions granting liberty to the petitioners to move an application for impleading them as party to the subject proceedings before the concerned authority i.e. Commissioner, who, in turn, shall decide the same in accordance with law. Ultimately, the Commissioner vide order dated 23.3.2026 allowed the application for impleadment of the petitioners as parties. After the impleadment, the petitioners filed an application dated 21.4.2026 before the Commissioner seeking vacation of the interim stay. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order dated 2.6.2026, rejected the application for vacating the stay on the ground that the Collector did not afford proper opportunity of hearing to respondent No.4, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice. Thus, vide the said impugned order, the interim 5 order dated 28.7.2025 was affirmed. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order(s) has stayed the enquiry/registration of the FIR. He submits that the rejection of the application for vacating of the stay is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Commissioner erred in holding that the principles of natural justice were not followed and while doing so, the Commissioner totally ignored the fact that notices were duly served on respondent No.4 and other Revenue Officers, replies were submitted by them and their statements were also recorded prior to passing of the order dated 17.7.2025. He submits that the Revenue Officers prepared forged revenue maps and were using three different maps according to their convenience. In view of the above, a thorough enquiry against these officers is absolutely necessary. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petitions. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petitions carefully. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 2.6.2026 reveals that against the order dated 17.7.2025 passed by the Collector, Manendragarh, District MCB, Manendragarh Chirmiri, Bharatpur in Revenue Case No.202409330100020/A-89/21/2023-24 filed by Upkar Kesharwani (one of the petitioners), Revenue Appeal bearing No.202507960100110/A-89/21/2024-25 has been preferred by respondent No.4-Pritam Beck, Revenue Inspector. While hearing the revenue case, the concerned Collector 6 declared the map(s) prepared on 30.9.2025 to be unauthorized, observing that it was not prepared in accordance with law. The Collector further directed that the Tehsildar, Manendragarh be informed about this decision. The Tehsildar, Manendragarh was directed to prepare a new map in respect of PC No.14 of Village Manendragarh in accordance with the relevant Land Record Rules within one month and to submit a compliance report to the Collector. In addition, the Collector directed registration of an FIR at the Police Station, Manendragarh against the responsible personnel. According to the Collector, Surendra Pal Singh - the then Halka Patwari, Manendragarh PC No.14, Pritam Singh Beck, the present Revenue Inspector, Manendragarh town and M.I. Iraqi, the then Incharge Superintendent, Land Records, have acted malafide in utilizing the unauthorized map. It was further directed that suspension orders be issued against the aforesaid persons and Departmental Enquiries be also initiated against them. Against the then Tehsildar -Shiri Nirajkant Tiwari also, a Departmental Enquiry was ordered. Since the order was passed by the Collector, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner as the superior authority. After filing of an appeal, the Commissioner requisitioned the record from the Collector, Manendragarh. However, pending receipt of the record, the Commissioner has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 17.7.2025. In the aforesaid appeal, the present petitioners moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading them as party respondents, contending that on their 7 application, the concerned Collector has passed the order dated 17.7.2025 and as such, they are necessary parties to the proceedings. The said application was opposed by respondent No.4 on the ground that the petitioners being mere complainants, were not necessary parties. However, the Commissioner allowed the application, observing that this Court vide its order dated 5.1.2026 passed in WPC No.6684/2025 and other connected petitions had granted liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the authority. After their impleadment as party respondents, the petitioners moved an application to vacate the stay order. They contended that the order of the Collector not only directed for initiation of departmental enquiries and the issuance of suspension orders, but also directed the registration of an FIR. Hence, looking to the gravity of the directions, the order ought not to have been stayed. Further, the petitioners stated in their application that the concerned Commissioner did not act in accordance with law, as no order staying the registration of an FIR can be passed. Thus, the order dated 17.7.2025 ought to be vacated. 6. After perusal of the order dated 17.7.2025 and the documents annexed to the appeal, the concerned Commissioner observed that while considering the application in Revenue Case No.202409330100020/A-89/21/2023-24, the Collector found that the prepared map(s) was not in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the Collector also passed orders directing the registration of an FIR, suspension of the revenue officers and initiation of a 8 Departmental Enquiry against them. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue authorities preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, the appellate authority superior to the Collector. In the first place, even if the order of the Collector is taken into consideration, the conclusion that the maps prepared by the revenue officers were not in accordance with law, is a finding that falls within the administrative purview of the Commissioner, who must verify whether the maps were legally prepared or not. Secondly, regarding the allegation of malafide usage of map by respondent No.4 and other revenue officers, the Collector’s order dated 17.7.2025 is premature. Such an order cannot attain finality unless and until the Commissioner concludes that the maps were either illegally prepared or utilized with malafide intent. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the since subject matter is presently pending final hearing before the Commissioner, the stay order cannot be vacated at this stage solely on the basis of the application of the petitioners/complainants. Further, under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (in short “the Code”), the Commissioner is fully empowered to stay the effect and operation of the order passed by the Collector. In my view, the Commissioner, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Code, rightly granted stay, which should not be vacated or interfered with on the ground that registration of an FIR cannot be stayed. 8. Moreover, from a perusal of the order dated 17.7.2025 passed by 9 the concerned Collector, it is quite vivid that the Collector’s directions pertain to preparation of maps. Hence, unless it is established that these maps were illegally prepared by the concerned revenue employees, the Collector’s order cannot be directed to be executed. Since the Collector passed the order dated 17.7.2025 on a mere complaint, the aggrieved revenue employees affected thereby possess a right to challenge it. 9. For the foregoing, since the matter is pending final adjudication before the Commissioner, at this stage, I do not consider the present to be a fit case to interfere with the impugned order(s) or to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the Petitions are dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue their case before the Commissioner in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay