1 2026:CGHC:25572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3019 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, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Upkar Kesharwani, S/o Shiv Shankar Kesharwani, Aged About 37 Years R/o- Ward No. 05, Moharpara, Manendragarh, District- 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, District- Ambikapur (C.G.) 3 - Collector/district Magistrate, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 - M.I. Iraqui, Land Revenue Inspector S/o-Late Mohd. Ishfak Iraqui R/o- Ward No. 12, Tahsil Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23.06.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- “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 feet in the interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 2913 of 2026 (Satpal Singh Saluja and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 18.06.2026. He prays that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:– “5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 2.6.2026 reveals that against the order dated 17.7.2025 passed by the Collector, 3 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 Collector6 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 4 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 their7 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 5 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 a8 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 6 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 by9 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. 7 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.” 3. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 4. Since the grievance of the petitioner is identical to the one considered in WPC No. 2913 of 2026 (Satpal Singh Saluja and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 18.06.2026 and the petitioner in the present case is also seeking the same relief, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of and in line with the aforesaid order. 5. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha