1 CGHC010257582026 2026:CGHC:28145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3541 of 2026 1 - Ramnand S/o Late Heeraman Aged About 75 Years Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Ward No. 5, Village Naila, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Mahesh Suryavanshi S/o Ramnand Aged About 55 Years Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Ward No. 5, Village Naila, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (Naya Raipur), District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002 2 - The Collector Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Naib Tehsildar Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Usha Agrawal W/o Late Gopal Prasad Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Naila, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 08.07.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order dated 03.05.2026 passed by the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), whereby, while considering the petitioner's application for review, the S.D.O. observed that the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2017 passed by the competent Civil Court are binding upon the revenue authorities. It is submitted that the S.D.O. further observed that, due to an inadvertent error, the said judgment and decree could not be taken into consideration while passing the earlier order dated 05.08.2025, and consequently referred the matter to the concerned Collector seeking permission to review the said order. Learned counsel submits that the course adopted by the S.D.O. is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the S.D.O. has no authority either to seek permission from the Collector for reviewing his own order or to initiate review proceedings in a manner not contemplated under the applicable statutory provisions. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order dated 03.05.2026 deserves to be set aside. 2. Learned State counsel submits that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is vested with the authority to review his own 3 order in accordance with the provisions of law. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir, while dealing with the application for review filed by respondent No.5, has observed that the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-I, Janjgir, which is binding upon the revenue authorities, could not inadvertently be taken into consideration while passing the earlier order. In view thereof, the S.D.O. (Revenue) has referred the matter to the concerned Collector seeking permission to review the order. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the S.D.O. (Revenue) has only initiated the process for review on the ground that the binding judgment and decree of the competent Civil Court had not been considered earlier. At this stage, no final order affecting the rights of the petitioner has been passed. Prima facie, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the action of the S.D.O. (Revenue) in seeking permission from the Collector for reviewing the earlier order. No case for interference 4 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, therefore, made out. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the concerned SDO(R) is under obligation to give opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties before reviewing the order dated 05.08.2025. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha