1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 760 of 2026 1 - Udaybhan Chaudhary S/o Hukumachand Jain Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Bangapal Tehsil Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh Presently Residently Residing At Bastar High School Road Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District President Bastar Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Smt. Renu Kochar and Shri Vaibhav Mittal, Advocates. For State : Shri Avinash Singh, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 03.07. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Circuit Bench at Jagdalpur, in Case No. RN.01/R/A-19(4)/48/2025, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was the allottee of government land bearing Khasra No.1/4 area 2.5 Acres, situated at village Bangapal, PH No.39, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.06 11:07:51 +0530 2 Bastar. The ancestors of the petitioner were cultivating the subject land and in the year 1985-86 under the settlement policy of the State Govt., the Tehsildar, Jagdalpur, vide its order dated 19.06.1986 granted a settlement Patta to the petitioner and also gave Bhumiswami right over it. In the year 1995, the SDO Revenue, Jagdalpur, received a complaint against the said Patta of the petitioner and vide its order dated 28.02.1995 cancelled the Patta granted to the petitioner by the Tehsildar. Before cancelling Patta, the petitioner was not provide any opportunity of hearing by the SDO Revenue and directed vesting of said land with the State Govt. She would also submit that the subject land was attached by the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, in Criminal Case No.30/1995 and therefore the SDO Revenue had no jurisdiction to exercise suo motu powers to cancell the Patta of the subject land, however, the petitioner remain in possession of the said land. In the year 2021, when the petitioner contacted with the Halka Patwari in connection with digging of a borewell over the subject land, he came to know that the Patta granted in her favour had already been cancelled in the year, 1995. Thereupon, the petitioner obtained necessary documents from the revenue department and filed an appeal before the Collector, Bastar. The Collector, Bastar, vide its order dated 13.02.2023, rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently her appeal was also dismissed. The challenge to the order dated 13.02.2023 before the Commissioner, Bastar Division, was also dismissed vide its order dated 15.07.2025 and subsequently the Board of Revenue have also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide order impugned dated 3 28.11.2025. The counsel for the petitioner would further submit that before cancelling the Patta grated in his favour, he should be heard and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cancellation of her Patta prejudiced her legal rights. he is in possession of subject land since 1985-86 and despite cancellation of Patta, though he was not informed, but he continued in possession of the same. From the order itself it reflects that no notice has been served upon the petitioner and an exparte order of cancellation of Patta was passed by the SDO. The SDO was not having jurisdiction to suo motu draw a revision for cancellation of Patta granted in favour of the petitioner. Before cancellation of Patta, the petitioner should have been provided opportunity of hearing. She would also submit that the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been wrongly dismissed by the Collector District Bastar by rejecting his application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. As and when the petitioner came to know about the order of cancellation of Patta, he obtained necessary documents and filed the appeal before the Collector Bastar and explained the reasons for delay, however, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, only on the ground that petitioner was ordered to be served with the notice but he was not found in his given address and as such opportunity was sufficiently provided to the petitioner, and has rejected the application which is erroneous. Even if the petitioner was not found in the given address on one occasion, that itself would not be sufficient to proceed ex-parte against him, that too for cancellation of Patta which is a valuable legal right of the petitioner. After examining the record and possession of the petitioner the Patta was granted to the petitioner by 4 the Tehsildar in the year 1985-86. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to restore the name of petitioner in the revenue record of the subject land. 3. On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the submissions and would submit that from the order of SDO Revenue, Jagdalpur, it clearly reflects that on a complaint received by him that the petitioner has obtained Patta by suppressing the material fact that infact he was a resident of Jagdalpur and not the resident of village Bangapal and is having immovable property at Jagdalpur, yet suppressing these facts he got settlement of 2.5 Acres of land in his favour. On the basis of proposal sent by the Tehsildar Jagdalpur dated 20.12.1994 which consists with the suppression of facts and irregularities and also the fraudulent act of the petitioner, a case was registered by the SDO in which notices were issued to the petitioner, but he was not found in his given address at village Bangapal. It also transpires from the order of SDO that after physical verification of the spot and inquiry from the villagers, the SDO has considered that the petitioner is not entitled for settlement of the land in his favour and therefore the Patta granted in his favour by the Tehsildar has been cancelled. The petitioner cannot say that no notice was issued to him. The record reflects that notice was issued to the petitioner, but he was not found in his address and the villagers have disclosed that he is the resident of Jagdalpur. Considering the suppression of facts by the petitioner, his lease has been cancelled. The petitioner cannot claim as a vested right to claim for lease particularly when he suppressed the material facts at the time of granting Patta. Therefore, the SDO Revenue has rightly cancelled 5 the Patta granted in favour of the petitioner. The Collector Bastar has also rightly rejected his application for condonation of delay and ultimately dismissed the appeal considering that notice was already issued to the petitioner and it was found that he was not the resident of village Bangapal and such a long lapse of time from 1995 to 2021 the petitioner did nothing, and therefore, the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not sufficient for condonation of delay, and has rejected the application. The order passed by the Collector, Bastar, has been affirmed by the Commissioner Bastar Division, as also by the Board of Revenue. The concurrent findings of the subordinate revenue courts do not require interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 5. From document Annexure P/2 it transpires that the Naib Tehsildar Bhanpuri, District Bastar, granted lease of 2.5 Acres of land Khasra No.1/4, situated at village Bangapal. As per order dated 19.06.1986 passed by the Naib Tehsildar it transpires that the petitioner had claimed Settlement Patta on the ground that he is cultivating the subject land since last 15 years and he is a resident of village Bangapal. The subject land was recorded in the revenue records as Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle. Subsequently, a report was submitted by the Tehsildar before the SDO Revenue, Jagdalpur on 20.12.1994 with respect to cancellation of Patta on the ground that the petitioner is not the resident of village Bangapal and he has illegally obtained Patta by suppressing the material facts. It is also reported that petitioner is the 6 resident of Jagdalpur. When notice was issued to the petitioner, he was not found in village Bangapal and notice returned un-served. It further transpires from the order dated 20.12.1995 that Tehsildar himself visited the spot and inquired from the local villagers who disclosed that the petitioner is the resident of Jagdalpur and holding that petitioner is the resident of Jagdapur and not the resident of village Bangapal, he is having immovable property at Jagdalpur, yet he has not disclosed the correct fact when the lease was granted to and obtained lease of 2.5 Acres of land under the settlement scheme, therefore, the lease was cancelled and the subject land was ordered to be re-vested with the State Govt. 6. The claim of the petitioner is that in the year 2021 when he visited to Halka Patwari for the purpose of digging borewell in his land, he came to know about cancellation of Patta in the year 1995 itself. One cannot expect that such a long lapse of time i.e. after about 25 years a person cannot obtain information of revenue records of the land in which he is claiming possession. The petitioner has not annexed any document that on the strength of said Patta his name was continuously mutated in the revenue records up till 2021. When he filed the appeal before the Collector Jagdalpur, though, he filed a copy of Rin Pustika of the subject land, but that Rin Pustika was prepared in the year 1986 when the lease was granted to him, however, there is no revenue documents to show that his name was actually mutated in the revenue records which continued up till 2021. 7. The Collector, Bastar, declined to condone inordinate delay holding that in the cancellation proceeding the notice was sent to the petitioner, but he was not found in the given address. While considering the case, the 7 Collector, Bastar also examined the order passed by the SDO Revenue dated 28.02.1995 and observed that it was the condition for allotment of land on Patta that person should be the resident of same village where he was granted Patta, but in the present case the petitioner was found that he was not residing in the village Bangapal, but residing at Jagdalpur and having immovable property at Jagdalpur and therefore, he was not entitled for settlement of the land in his favour. 8. The petitioner failed to make out any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the revenue courts have concurrently held that petitioner obtained Patta by suppressing material facts and he was not the resident of village Bangapal where the land is situated which was the pre-condition to grant Patta in favour of a person concerned, this court does not find any scope for interference in the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder