1 CGHC010204242022 2026:CGHC:31779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2854 of 2022 Ramkumar Kashyap S/o Late Shambhu Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 60 Years R/o Opp. Raja Hotel, Telephone Exchange Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Collector, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Addl. Tahsildar,, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Revenue Inspector, R.I. Circle Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. 2 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD ORDER ON BOARD 24/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application for demarcation under Section 129 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code was rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner had not filed certified copies of the demarcation report and the impugned order. Consequently, the revision was dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner thereafter filed another revision before the same authority, annexing the relevant documents required for deciding the revision. However, the Additional Collector dismissed the said revision on the ground that an earlier revision had already been dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2019, and therefore, it could not be entertained. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, after considering the matter, held that since the petitioner had failed to file the relevant documents before the Additional Collector in the first instance, the revision had rightly been dismissed. The Commissioner further observed that, as the earlier revision had already been dismissed, the matter could not be reconsidered. All the aforesaid orders are under challenge in the present writ petition. 3 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that, since the petitioner failed to file the relevant documents, the orders impugned herein were rightly passed. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not sought any liberty from the concerned Additional Collector to file the requisite documents subsequently. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the sole reason for dismissal of the revision by the Additional Collector was that the petitioner had failed to file certified copies of the demarcation report and the order passed by the concerned authority, i.e., the SDO (Revenue). On this ground alone, the revision came to be dismissed. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the requisite documents and preferred another revision before the competent authority. However, the same was rejected without examining the matter on its merits. Once the earlier revision had been dismissed solely on account of non-filing of the relevant documents, the subsequent revision, accompanied by the requisite documents, ought to have been considered on merits instead of being rejected by placing reliance upon the earlier order. The Commissioner also failed to consider this aspect of the matter. 5. Accordingly, the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Commissioner, as well as the orders dated 03.01.2019 and 07.02.2019 passed by the Additional Collector, are hereby set aside and quashed. The Additional Collector is directed to 4 consider and decide the petitioner's revision afresh on its own merits, taking into account the documents filed by the petitioner. If necessary, the revisional authority shall afford the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saurabh