1 CGHC010547322025 2026:CGHC:30283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 22 of 2026 1 - Kalyan Singh S/o Ishwar Lodhi Aged About 42 Years [ 2 - Bharat S/o Lukaru Aged About 48 Years [3 - Vishnu S/o Khelan Dhobi Aged About 38 Years 4 - Seeta Ram S/o Mansha Ram Aged About 43 Years 5 - Satish S/o Mansa Ram Dhobi Aged About 32 Years 6 - Aghanu S/o Bhagela Aged About 45 Years 7 - Asha W/o Nakul Yadav Aged About 36 Years 8 - Narsingh S/o Sitaram Aged About 33 Years 9 - Prakash S/o Sadhu Ram Aged About 36 Years 10 - Ganesh S/o Bije Ram Lohar Aged About 45 Years 11 - Vijay S/o Shankar Lodhi Aged About 47 Years 12 - Neelkath S/o Mannu Aged About 39 Years 13 - Narayan S/o Mannu Aged About 42 Years 14 - Girdhar S/o Mannu Aged About 40 Years 15 - Sukhdev S/o Bhagalu Yadav Aged About 35 Years 16 - Sakar S/o Pardhi Aged About 40 Years 17 - Shankar S/o Gabdu Aged About 70 Years 18 - Dhan Singh S/o Firanta Aged About 55 Years 2 19 - Fanit S/o Peela Ram Aged About 32 Years 20 - Mannu S/o Hagaru Aged About 65 Years 21 - Jitendra S/o Late Onkar Aged About 32 Years 22 - Tijan Bai W/o Onkar Aged About 48 Years 23 - Santosh S/o Mansha Ram Aged About 42 Years 24 - Mansha S/o Bhagwat Aged About 65 Years 25 - Feru S/o Dhanesh Yadav Aged About 39 Years 26 - Leela Bai W/o Aghanu Pardhi Aged About 42 Years 27 - Khelan S/o Lutu Aged About 55 Years 28 - Mohni W/o Khelan Ram Aged About 52 Years 29 - Dhanesh S/o Paltu Aged About 63 Years 30 - Dilip S/o Dhanesh Aged About 35 Years 31 - Bharat S/o Jagdish Aged About 45 Years 32 - Kunti W/o Bharat Aged About 42 Years 33 - Deenbandhu S/o Sadhu Ram Aged About 40 Years 34 - Peela Ram S/o Rameshar Aged About 55 Years 35 - Peelu Ram S/o Lukaru Aged About 42 Years 36 - Savitri Bai W/o Bharat Lodhi Aged About 42 Years 37 - Laxmi W/o Peelu Ram Aged About 40 Years All are Resident Of Village Daganiya, Tahsil Than-Khamhariya, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 2 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Saja District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Than-Khamhariya, District Bemetara (C.G.) 6 - Maan Singh S/o Pakil Singh Verma 7 - Koushal S/o Paltan Lodhi 8 - Dhruv S/o Jhadu Lodhi 9 - Anupa Bai W/o Madan Lodhi No.6 to 9 are Resident Of Village Daganiya, Tahsil Than-Khamhariya, District Bemetara (C.G.) 10 - Village Panchayat Daganiya Tahsil Than-Khamhariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) Through- Its Sarpanch. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 5/State : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondents No. 6 to 9 : None though served. For Respondent No.10 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (16th July, 2026) This review petition has been preferred for review/recalling of the order dated 26.9.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in WPC No.5128/2025 whereby the petition filed by the petitioners herein has been dismissed. 4 02. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are poor persons residing since 2002 on the Abadi land allotted to them by Village Panchayat-Daganiya, Distt. Bemetara. Prior to that, the Collector, Durg vide order dated 19.10.2002 changed the nature of the said land from grass land to Abadi land. The order of the Collector was challenged by respondents No. 6 to 8 before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, who set aside the order of the Collector. Thereafter, respondents No. 6 & 7 herein filed an application under Section 248 of CG Land Revenue Code for removal of encroachment of the petitioners, which was rejected by the Tehsildar, Thankhamariya vide order dated 3.4.2023. This order of the Tehsildar was challenged by respondents No. 6 & 7 namely Maan Singh Verma and Kaushal by filing a writ petition i.e. WPC No.34/2025 impleading the petitioners herein as respondents. However, without issuing notice to the petitioners herein and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, vide order dated 7.1.2025 this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Tehsildar to draw proceeding under Section 248 of CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 against the petitioners/respondents therein. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that when the petitioners came to know about passing of the order dated 7.1.2025, they filed a writ petition i.e. WPC No.5128/2025. The said petition was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench only on the ground that the same has been filed challenging the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the 5 Board of Revenue after a lapse of 17 years whereas the petitioners had duly explained in their petition that they were not aware about passing of the order by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, rather they came to know about the aforesaid fact only after passing of the order against them in WPC No.34/2025 and whisper spread about the said order in the village. Thus, there is sufficient cause in favour of the petitioners for filing the writ petition (WPC No.5128/2025) belatedly. However, without considering all these facts, the learned co-ordinate Bench dismissed their writ petition in limine. He further submits that the instant review petition has been filed by the petitioners in light of liberty granted to them by the learned Division Bench in WA No.863/2025 which was withdrawn by them after permission of the Court vide order dated 26.11.2025. He further submits that the petitioners are downtrodden, they have constructed house over the land allotted to them by the Village Panchayat and residing their for the last more than 24 years with their families, therefore, dismissal of the writ petition (WPC No.5128/2025) without affording them opportunity of hearing, is causing them grave prejudice. He, therefore, prays that the review petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.9.2025 passed in WPC No.5128/2025 may be recalled and direction for restoration of this writ petition may be issued. 04. The respondents No. 1 to 5/State have filed its reply. Learned counsel for the respondents/State, referring to its reply, would oppose 6 the submission of the petitioners. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 06. The petitioners had challenged the order dated 26.9.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in WPC No.5128/2025 by filing a writ appeal i.e. WA No.863/2025 which has been permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners/appellants therein to file a review petition. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 26.9.2025 shows that the writ petition has been disposed of in limine only on the ground that the petitioners filed the petition after a lapse of about 17 years from the date of order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh. There is no consideration in the impugned order with regard to the explanation offered by the petitioners in the writ petition for filing the same belatedly. Having considered the issue involved in the writ petition (WPC No.5128/2025) as the petitioners are said to be residing at their respective places for the last about 24 years, it was necessary to afford them an opportunity of hearing prior to disposal of the writ petition. However, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their stand. Being so, the review petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. 07. In the result, the review petition is allowed. The impugned order 7 dated 26.9.2025 passed in WPC No.5128/2025 is hereby recalled. Registry is directed to restore WPC No.5128/2025, parties being Kalyan Singh & others Vs. State of CG & others, to its original number, and list the case as per roster. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.07.17 15:35:44 +0530