1 CGHC010348992023 2026:CGHC:28064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4669 of 2023 1 - Dilbodh Das S/o Janki Das, Aged About 50 Years Caste- Panika, R/o Village Baheramar, Police Station Chhal, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Kabidham, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 4 - The Naib Tahsildar, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 5 - Kawal Sai S/o Atmaram Aged About 85 Years R/o Munund, Tahsil Chhal, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) and remain the revision case to the respondent no. 2 for deciding the revision on its own merits, in accordance with law, within stipulated time. 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the order dated 06.09.2023 would reveal that the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not approached the appropriate revisional authority before which the revision was maintainable. He submits that the petitioner had directly preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and, therefore, the Board of Revenue held that the said revision petition was not maintainable before it. He further submits that, while dismissing the revision petition, the Board of Revenue itself observed that the 3 petitioner would be at liberty to approach the competent revisional authority, as provided under the applicable provisions of law, for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate statutory remedy before the competent authority. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Board of Revenue. He submits that, against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the petitioner was required to approach the competent authority in accordance with the hierarchy and remedy prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959; however, the petitioner failed to avail the appropriate statutory remedy and directly approached the Board of Revenue. He further submits that the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) appears to be an appealable order and, therefore, the petitioner is required to avail the appropriate remedy available to him under the provisions of law. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner had initially approached the Board of Revenue by invoking a remedy before an inappropriate forum, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal/revision, as the case may be and as 4 envisaged under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the competent authority, challenging the order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), for redressal of his grievance. Since the petitioner had initially approached the wrong forum and had directly preferred proceedings before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 10.04.2023, and thereafter approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, which has remained pending since the year 2023, the competent authority is directed to take the aforesaid circumstances into due consideration while deciding the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, if any, filed along with the appropriate appeal/revision. The concerned authority shall specifically consider the fact that the petitioner had been bona fide pursuing his remedy, initially before the Board of Revenue and thereafter before this Court, while considering the prayer for condonation of delay, and shall pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With this observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat