1 CGHC010080202023 2026:CGHC:28912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1168 of 2023 Annaprasan Das S/o Chandar Das Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Turna Tahsil Lakhanpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Umashankar Rajwade S/o Nohar Sai Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Turna, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Ambikapur, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Hari Om Rai, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : i.That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of learned courts below. SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.14 12:42:11 +0530 2 ii.That, this Hon'ble court may kindly set aside the impugned order dated 21/9/2022 passed by the revenue Board Bilaspur C.G iii.That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the present petitioner in the interest of justice along with costs of the petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order directing removal of encroachment was passed against the petitioner by the Naib Tehsildar, Lakhanpur, District Sarguja on 30.4.2019, pursuant to an application filed by respondent No.1 before the said authority. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO ( R), Udaipur, however, vide order dated 9.10.2019, the SDO dismissed the appeal, observing that the initial order was rightly passed by the concerned Tehsildar, which warrants no interference. Against the order dated 9.10.2019, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the concerned Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.6.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Board of Revenue, however, the Board of Revenue also dismissed the petition by a detailed order holding that the petitioner was an encroacher upon the land of respondent No.1. Thus, the orders passed by the concerned Tehsildar, the Sub- Divisional Officer and the Commissioner stand concurrently affirmed by the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, this Petition. 3 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents annexed with the petition, this Court finds that in every stage of proceedings, orders have been passed against the petitioner holding that he is in illegal occupation of the land belonging to the private respondent. 5. In view of the foregoing, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not required to re- examine the matter on facts. A concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the revenue authorities. As such, even if the impugned order(s) are alleged to be erroneous on facts, the same warrant no interference under writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay