1 2026:CGHC:26193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2119 of 2022 Order Reserved on 16.06.2026 Order Delivered on 29.06.2026 1 - Manharan Lal Sharma S/o Late Jawala Prasad Sharma Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Karsa, Tahsil Patan,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ashwani Sharma S/o Late Tukaram Sharma R/o Village Karsa, Tahsil Patan,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. For Respondent No. : None VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh Revenue Board, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./05/R/A-5/245/2019 (Manharan Lal Sharma v. Ashwani Sharma & another), arising out of the order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Court of Commissioner (Revenue), Durg Division, District Durg (C.G.). By the impugned order, the Revenue Board has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg dated 06.09.2016 as well as the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, while rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan, District Durg, by order dated 05.02.2014, had passed an order which has been wrongly interfered with and ultimately the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed challenging the said order. 3 2. The subject matter of the present petition, in brief, is that the petitioner had filed an application for correction of bandobast entries before the Nayab Tahsildar, Bhilai, in respect of land situated at Village Karsa, P.H. No. 14, old Khasra No. 328/15, area 25 dismil (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of bandobast proceedings, the area of the said land was incorrectly recorded as 0.09 hectare and the Khasra number was wrongly altered from 328/15 to 328/14, and even the map was not correctly prepared, thereby necessitating correction of the revenue records. It is stated that the Nayab Tahsildar registered Case No. 31/A-5/2008-09 and, after calling for report from the Revenue Inspector and issuance of proclamation, rejected the application vide order dated 11.02.2011 on the ground that Khasra No. 328/15 (area 0.101 hectare) was recorded jointly in the khasra panchshala of 1985–86 and that there was no clear demarcation (bantankan) in the map. It was further observed that as per the report of the Revenue Inspector, Khasra No. 328/15 was later renumbered as Khasra No. 737, upon which constructions have been raised by third parties, and that no separate new number was shown for the said khasra, while Khasra No. 739, area 0.06 hectare, was recorded in the 4 name of Tukaram, hence the case was not one of correction of bandobast. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan, District Durg, registered as Appeal Case No. 34/A-5/2011-12, which was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2014. The Sub Divisional Officer held that old Khasra No. 328/15, area 0.101 hectare, was recorded in the name of the petitioner, and that the said khasra was wrongly reflected in subsequent records, and further observed that the land corresponding to new Khasra No. 739, area 0.06 hectare, had been wrongly recorded, resulting in erroneous entries in the name of Tukaram. Challenging the said order, respondent No. 1 preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, registered as Case No. 149/A-5/2013-14, which was allowed vide order dated 06.09.2016 primarily on the ground that under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Code 1959’], correction in bandobast proceedings relating to area could not be entertained after a long lapse of time from the original settlement proceedings of 1985–86, and that no case of wrong entry of survey number was made out. Thereafter, the matter was carried in revision before the Chhattisgarh Revenue Board, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur, which was 5 registered as Revision Case No. R.N./05/R/A-5/245/2019, and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2022, thereby affirming the order passed by the Commissioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the orders passed by the Nayab Tahsildar dated 11.02.2011, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated 05.02.2014, Commissioner, Durg Division dated 06.09.2016, and the Revenue Board dated 08.02.2022 are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer deserves to be restored. Hence, the present petition. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by setting-aside order dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed byNayab Tahsildar Bhilai-3, order of Additional Commissioner Revenue Durg Division Durg dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P/12) and order of Board of Revenue dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/15) rejecting the application Annexure P/1 for correction of bandobast error be held to be illegal and against Annexure P/3 i.e. report of Revenue Inspector which was considered and decided in favour of petitioner vide order dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure P/7) and the same be 6 affirmed by setting-aside orders Annexure P/2, P/12 and P/15, in the interest of justice. 10.2. Costs of the petition be awarded and 10.3. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Nayab Tahsildar, Bhilai-3 dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P/2), the Additional Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P/12), and the Board of Revenue dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/15), are wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as the same suffer from non-consideration of material evidence on record and misapplication of revenue law. It is submitted that the authorities below have failed to appreciate that there was no correction in the renumbering parcha relating to Khasra No. 328/15, and only Khasra No. 328/14 was dealt with, which clearly establishes that there existed a settlement/bandobast error in the revenue records. The said error was rightly sought to be corrected by the petitioner, and therefore the orders Annexures P/2, P/12 and P/15 deserve to be set aside while the well-reasoned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure P/7) deserves to be affirmed. Learned counsel further submits that 7 the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has passed a reasoned and speaking order after due consideration of the report of the Revenue Inspector (Annexure P/3), wherein it was clearly reported that there existed a settlement error in recording of khasra entries and renumbering, and accordingly correction was warranted. The said factual finding based on revenue record and inspection report has not been properly appreciated by the appellate and revisional authorities. It is further submitted that the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue are contrary to the Revenue Inspector’s report (Annexure P/3), which had been duly relied upon by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the order dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure P/7). The rejection of the said report without assigning cogent reasons renders the impugned orders unsustainable in law. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had approached the competent authority for correction of settlement/bandobast entries on account of admitted mistake in khasra and map during settlement proceedings, and accordingly a case was registered on 26.06.2009 (Annexure P/2). The Revenue Inspector submitted its report (Annexure P/3), however the same was ignored by the Nayab Tahsildar while passing the order dated 11.02.2011. It is further submitted that the Sub 8 Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan, District Durg, after proper appreciation of record, passed a well-reasoned order dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure P/7), allowing correction and holding that there existed an error in settlement entries, which requires correction in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel submits that the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P/12) and the Board of Revenue dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/15) are based on an erroneous assumption that the correction was sought merely on the basis of possession, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the record, as the correction was sought on the basis of settlement error supported by official revenue records. It is further submitted that under Sections 68, 69, 70, 72 and 73 of the Code 1959, the State authorities are duty bound to ensure correction of settlement records where clerical or mapping errors are found, and such correction is not barred by limitation where the error is continuing in nature and causes continuous cause of action affecting title and possession. Learned counsel also submits that the plea of limitation has been wrongly applied by the revisional authorities, as correction of settlement entries arising out of continuing error cannot be rejected on technical grounds, particularly when the revenue record itself 9 discloses mistake. It is further submitted that Section 89 of the Code 1959 permits correction of settlement records, and the proviso only restricts recovery of arrears of land revenue and does not bar correction of erroneous entries in revenue records. Therefore, the interpretation adopted by the revisional authorities is misconceived. In view of the above, learned counsel submits that the order dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P/2), order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P/12) and order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/15) deserve to be quashed and the order dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan deserves to be affirmed, as the same is just, proper and in accordance with law. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, as the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities are legal, well-reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of revenue records as well as settled principles governing correction of bandobast entries. It is submitted that the Nayab Tahsildar, Bhilai-3, while passing the order dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P/2), has conducted a detailed enquiry, called for report from the Revenue Inspector, and upon examination of the entire revenue record, found that there was no clear error 10 warranting correction of bandobast entries as alleged by the petitioner. The finding recorded is based on factual verification of khasra records and map entries. Learned State Counsel further submits that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Patan, while passing the order dated 05.02.2014 (Annexure P/7), has erroneously interfered with the well- reasoned order of the Nayab Tahsildar without properly appreciating the settled position of law that correction of settlement entries cannot be undertaken in a mechanical manner, particularly when long-standing revenue records and third-party rights have come into existence. It is further submitted that the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, vide order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P/12), has rightly reversed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer after examining the factual and legal aspects of the matter and holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner does not constitute a case of correction of bandobast error, but rather relates to alteration of entries based on possession and subsequent claims. 7.Learned State Counsel submits that the Chhattisgarh Revenue Board, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur, vide order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/15), has also rightly dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner, affirming the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner and 11 the original authority. It is submitted that the Revenue Board, being the highest fact-finding authority under the Code 1959, has correctly appreciated the scope and limitation of correction proceedings. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that there existed a settlement error is not supported by any conclusive documentary evidence. The revenue records, including khasra panchshala and map entries, have been consistently maintained, and the authorities have rightly held that no case for correction of bandobast under the Code 1959 is made out. Learned State Counsel further submits that correction of revenue entries cannot be permitted after lapse of considerable time where rights of third parties have intervened and the entries have attained finality. The petitioner is, in effect, seeking re- adjudication of settled factual issues, which is impermissible in revenue jurisdiction. It is further submitted that all the authorities below have passed reasoned and speaking orders after due consideration of material on record, including the report of the Revenue Inspector, and there is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, learned State Counsel submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of 12 merits, as no interference is called for in the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that an application under Section 18 of the Code 1959 was filed by the present petitioner in the year 2009 seeking correction of an alleged error in the land survey and settlement carried out during the years 1985–86. The said application was instituted on 26.06.2009, after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two decades, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 89 of the Code 1959. 10. Section 89 of the Code 1959 is reproduced hereinbelow:— “89. Power of Sub-Divisional Officer to correct errors.- The Sub- Divisional Officer may, at any time after the closure of the revenue surveys and during the term of settlement, correct any error in the area or assessment of any survey number or holding due to mistake of survey or arithmetical miscalculation: 13 Provided that no arrears of land revenue shall become pay- able by reason of such correction. Legislative changes. In the repealed Chapter, S.89 contained analogous provisions. That section ran as under:- "89. Power to grant power of Settlement Officer during term of settlement.- The State Government may, during the term of settlement, invest any Revenue Officer with all or any of the power of the Settlement Officer under this Chapter, within such area and subject to such restrictions and for such period as it may think fit." 11. A plain reading of Section 89 of the Code 1959 makes it clear that any error relating to survey, measurement, or area of the concerned land is required to be brought to the notice of the competent authority and corrected during the course of the settlement proceedings itself. The provision specifically contemplates correction of such errors while the settlement operations are in progress and does not envisage reopening of the survey and settlement records after an extraordinarily long lapse of time. Therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner in the year 2009, seeking correction of entries arising out of the survey and settlement conducted in 1985– 14 86, was clearly belated and not in consonance with the scheme and intent of Section 89 of the Code 1959. 12. In the present matter, it is an admitted position that the survey and settlement operations were conducted way back in the year 1985–86. However, neither during the course of the settlement proceedings nor immediately after completion thereof did the petitioner prefer any application seeking correction of the alleged error in the survey records. It was only after an inordinate delay of about 25 years that an application came to be filed alleging mistakes in the survey entries. 13. The said application was dismissed by the concerned Tehsildar vide order dated 11.02.2011. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Revenue, vide order dated 06.09.2016. While dismissing the appeal, the Commissioner recorded a finding that the dispute raised by the petitioner was not merely with respect to correction of an error in the land survey and, therefore, the relief sought could not be granted under Section 89 of the Code 1959. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner was held to be beyond the scope and ambit of the said provision. 15 14. From a perusal of Section 89 of the Code 1959, it appears that the provision primarily contemplates correction of the area of holdings and other clerical or arithmetical errors detected during the course of survey and settlement operations so that such mistakes may be rectified at the relevant stage itself. However, the said provision does not envisage entertaining claims for correction after an inordinate delay of nearly 25 years from the completion of the settlement proceedings. 15. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Commissioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, after considering the entire factual matrix of the case, observed that a perusal of the application revealed that the petitioner was seeking correction of the area of his holding by contending that land bearing Khasra No. 328/15 had been erroneously measured as 0.09 hectares and, therefore, the same required correction. It was further contended that Khasra No. 328/15 had been incorrectly shown as Khasra No. 328/14 in the settlement map, which also required rectification. 16. All the three authorities below have concurrently declined to interfere in the matter, holding that under Section 89 of the 16 Code 1959, correction of errors relating to survey and settlement records can only be sought during the course of the settlement operations and immediately after completion of the survey. Since the application in the present case was preferred after an inordinate delay of about 25 years, the same was rightly held to be not maintainable. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is discernible in the orders passed by the authorities below, including the order of the Board of Revenue rendered in revision. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground, much less a substantial ground, warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 18. Even assuming that the report relied upon by the petitioner is taken into consideration, the same would not advance the petitioner's case in view of the clear mandate and limited scope of Section 89 of the Code 1959. The statutory provision does not permit reopening or correction of survey and settlement records after such an extraordinary lapse of time. The application having been filed at a highly belated stage was, therefore, rightly rejected by the competent authorities. 17 19. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 20. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha