1 2026:CGHC:27061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 54 of 2021 Order Reserved on: 17.4.2026 Order Delivered on: 2.7.2026 • Nandkumar S/o Birju Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Lohrakot, Tehsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Father Name Wrongly Mentioned As Dirju In Impugned Order)., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mohan Lal Sahu S/o Arakshit Sahu R/o Kurmadih, Village Lohrakot, Tehsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Tehsildar Tehsil Pithaura District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & 3/State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 To kindly call for entire records of the case. 10.2 To kindly quash the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the board of revenue as well as notice dated 09.12.2020 issued by the Tehsildar 10.3 To kindly restore the order passed by commissioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the notice dated 09.12.2020 issued by the Tahsildar, Mahasamund, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the alleged unauthorized encroachment over the land in question and to vacate the same within a period of seven days. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed an application seeking an order of stay against the alleged 3 construction being raised by the petitioner over the land bearing Khasra No. 236/2. Upon coming to know of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed his objection before the concerned Tahsildar specifically contending that the application had been erroneously entertained as one under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, despite the fact that the ingredients of the said provision were not attracted to the facts of the present case. However, the Tahsildar failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and, by order, decided the matter in favour of respondent No. 1, directing the petitioner to vacate possession of the land in question. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who affirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who, after considering the material available on record, set aside the order passed by the SDO and allowed the appeal in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 31.07.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. The Board of Revenue, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, allowed the revision petition, set aside the well-reasoned order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 31.07.2019, and restored the orders of the subordinate revenue authorities. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, as well as the Board of Revenue have committed a manifest error of law in holding that the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was maintainable. It is contended that a plain reading of Section 250 itself clearly demonstrates that the application was not maintainable, as respondent No. 1 had failed to disclose the essential particulars required under the said provision, including the date or period of alleged dispossession and the circumstances under which the petitioner had allegedly occupied the land. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in continuous, open, and peaceful possession of the land in question for more than 45 years, and therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 250 were hopelessly barred by limitation. It is further argued that the Tahsildar failed to conduct any proper enquiry, did not record or appreciate the relevant evidence, and passed the impugned order without ascertaining the true facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the order of the Tahsildar suffers from serious legal infirmities. It is also contended that neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority considered these material aspects while affirming the order passed by the Tahsildar. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing, thereby resulting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the dispute 5 involved questions relating to title and long-standing possession, which are purely civil in nature and could not have been adjudicated in summary proceedings under Section 250 of the Code. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 1 ought to have instituted a properly constituted civil suit seeking declaration of title, possession, and other consequential reliefs instead of invoking the summary jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. It is, therefore, submitted that the Tahsildar acted wholly without jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding the proceedings under Section 250. The authorities below have completely ignored the petitioner's uninterrupted possession for more than four decades, which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The Additional Commissioner had rightly appreciated the factual and legal position while allowing the petitioner's appeal, but the said well- reasoned order has been illegally and arbitrarily set aside by the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, as well as the Board of Revenue have duly considered the entire material available on record and have concurrently recorded findings against the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 is the recorded bhumiswami and title holder of the agricultural lands bearing Khasra Nos. 236/2 and 237/2, which stand duly recorded in his name in the revenue records. According to respondent No. 6 1, the cause of action arose when the petitioner, without any lawful authority, encroached upon the land belonging to respondent No. 1 and started constructing a hutment thereon. Consequently, proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code were initiated on the application filed by respondent No. 1, and after conducting the requisite enquiry, the Tahsildar passed an order directing removal of the encroachment and restoration of possession to respondent No. 1. The said order was affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal. However, the Additional Commissioner, while deciding the second appeal, illegally and arbitrarily set aside the concurrent findings of the Tahsildar and the SDO merely on the assumption that the petitioner had been residing over the land by constructing a house and badi since the lifetime of his father. It is submitted that the Additional Commissioner failed to appreciate that proceedings under Section 250 are maintainable where an application is filed within two years from the date of dispossession. Merely because the petitioner claimed long possession without producing any cogent documentary evidence, the Additional Commissioner erroneously concluded that the order directing removal of encroachment could not be sustained. It is thus contended that the Board of Revenue has rightly corrected the illegality committed by the Additional Commissioner. 7 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and the material available on record. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the Additional Commissioner committed a patent illegality in allowing the appeal without there being any cogent evidence to establish that the petitioner or his predecessors had constructed the kaccha house, hutment, or badi over the disputed land more than forty-five years prior. The petitioner failed to produce any documentary or reliable oral evidence in support of such a claim. Consequently, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was not sustainable in law. The Board of Revenue has rightly noticed that the petitioner's own land bearing Khasra No. 236/1 had been acquired in the month of June, 2017, for which he had received compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner illegally occupied the adjoining land belonging to respondent No. 1. Since the application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was filed on 28.06.2017, the same was well within the prescribed period of two years from the date of dispossession. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue rightly held that the proceedings under Section 250 were maintainable and had been initiated within the period prescribed under law. The findings recorded by the Board of Revenue are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and the statutory provisions and do 8 not suffer from any perversity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat