1 2026:CGHC:26939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5451 of 2022 1 - Krishna Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Mantram Chandrakar Aged About 63 Years R/o Village And Post - Bharewa (Puran), Tahsil - Pandaria, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) At Present R/o House No. S- 05, Kanchan Ganga Colony, Phase-2, Behind Science Colony, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner, Durg Division, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pandaria, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 6 - The Naib Tahsildar, Kunda, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 7 - Ramkumar Chandrakar S/o Late Mantram Chandrakar, 8 - Smt. Bundela Chandrakar W/o Suman Prasad Chandrakar 9 - Yashwant Chandrakar S/o Ramswarup Chandrakar, 10 - D.C. Chandrakar S/o Of Ramswarup Chandrakar 11 - Pyare S/o Dayaram 12 - Ramayan S/o Dayaram AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.03 18:18:17 +0530 2 13 - Harendra S/o Murari, 14 - Adalat S/o Murari, 15 - Smt. Ramkumari W/o Late Rajkumar Chandrakar, 16 - Mukesh Chandrakar S/o Late Rajkumar Chandrakar, 17 - Smt. Hemlata Chandrakar D/o Late Rajkumar Chandrakar, 18 - Smt. Rama Chandrakar D/o Late Rajkumar Chandrakar Respondent Nos.7 to 18 R/o Village And Post - Bharewa (Puran), Tahsil - Pandaria, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate. For State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, PL. For Respondent No.7 : Shri Shahid Raza appears on behalf of Shri Sachin Nidhi, Advocates. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. The instant writ petition has preferred against the impugned order dated 12.10.2022 passed in Case No. RN/08/R/A-73/192/2022 by the Board of Revenue (respondent no. 2) (Annexure P/1), whereby without giving its findings on merits and without calling records, the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the statutory revision preferred by the petitioner by passing a non-speaking order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent no. 7 are the real brother and the partition of ancestral property has already been done between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 and they are cultivating their lands separately. Respondent no. 7 filed an application U/s 253 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short Code, 3 1959) before the respondent no. 5 for removal of encroachment made by the petitioner and other private respondents upon the Nistar (pathway) lands bearing khasra no. 258, 260, 261, 342, 343, 346 & 347 situated Village-Bharewapuran, P.H.No. 53, R.I.C.-Kunda, Tahsil- Pandaria, District-Kabirdham (C.G.), that the encroachment made by the encroachers be removed and the cost be imposed upon the encroachers. Vide order dated 11.12.2017, the SDO(Revenue), Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G. (respondent no. 5) has rejected the application U/s 253 of Code, 1959 assigning the reason that the respondent no. 7 has not produced any evidence to show that the government lands (pathway) has been encroached by the petitioner and other private respondents in Revenue Case No.02A/73, year 2016- 17 (Annexure P/2). Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2017, the respondent no. 7 preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 4 and vide order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P/3), Additional Collector, Kabirdham C.G. set-aside the order of respondent no. 5 and remanded the case back to the respondent no. 5 in Revenue Case No.10/A-73, year 2017-18. After remand, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, vide order dated 14.01.2019 (Annexure P/4) passed in Revenue Case No.2-A/73, year 2016-17, the respondent no. 5 has directed the respondent no. 6 to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner and other private respondents 4 from the pathway and also imposed cost of Rs. 1000/-. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.01.2019, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 4 bearing Appeal case No.13-A-73, year 2018-19 and vide order dated 19.06.2019, the respondent no. 4 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Against the order dated 19.06.2019, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the respondent no. 3 bearing Revenue Case No.244/A-73/year 2018-2019 and vide order dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P/6), the respondent no. 3 has dismissed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2022, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent no. 2 along with an application for grant of stay and vide impugned order dated 12.10.2022, without giving findings on merits, without calling records, the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the statutory revision preferred by the petitioner by a non- speaking order. Hence this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order has not given any findings on merits and without calling records, Respondent No.2 has dismissed the statutory revision preferred by the petitioner by a non-speaking order. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that there is concurrent finding of facts by three court below which establish that petitioner has encroached upon the government land. 5 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order has held that the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 14.01.2019 had directed the Naib Tehsildar to remove the encroachment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- on the encroacher, which was also accepted by the Collector in his order dated 19.06.2019 as lawful, on the basis of which, Commissioner has rejected the appeal of the petitioner, which is also legal and since three of the Courts below have proved that the petitioner has encroached upon the subject land and petitioner was unsuccessful in proving that he has not encroached upon the government land. The Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner. The record reveals that the Sub-Divisional Officer, after remand, passed an order directing removal of the encroachment from the Government pathway and imposed a cost upon the encroachers. The said order was affirmed by the Additional Collector in appeal and thereafter by the Commissioner in second appeal. Thus, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the revenue authorities holding that the petitioner had encroached upon the Government land. 6. The scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the competent revenue authorities is limited. Unless such findings are shown to be perverse, 6 arbitrary, based on no evidence, or suffering from any patent illegality or violation of principles of natural justice causing prejudice, this Court would not re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those arrived at by the statutory authorities. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any such infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below. The impugned order sufficiently discloses that the revisional authority considered the material on record and found no ground warranting interference with the concurrent findings. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner on account of the manner in which the revisional order has been framed. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The impugned order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue does not call for interference. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash