1 CGHC010273242026 2026:CGHC:31679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3860 of 2026 1 - Jitendra Vijay Bahadur Singh S/o Late Shri Udit Narayan Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Navagaon Tahsil- Malkharauda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Ministry Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhavan Nava Raipur, Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 3 - Sub Divisional Officer District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil- Malkharauda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Pramod Kumar S/o Late Shri Bhisam Prasad R/o Chotesipat Tehsil Malkharauda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Vinod Kumar S/o Late Shri Bhisam Prasad R/o Chotesipat Tehsil Malkharauda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7 - Chandra Shekhar S/o Rohit Kumar R/o Village- Malkharauda Teh- Malkharauda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1] That, this Hob'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Tahsildar to communicate the status of the proceedings instituted by the Petitioner (Annexure-P/1). 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application in the year 2004 seeking mutation of his name in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 659/1, admeasuring 5.40 acres. It is contended that despite the lapse of considerable time, the said application has not been decided by the competent revenue authority. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in not deciding the mutation application, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking an appropriate direction to the concerned authorities for its expeditious consideration and disposal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and 3 submits that the revenue records were duly corrected and the names of respondents No. 5 to 7 were mutated in respect of the land in question pursuant to an order passed by the competent authority during the year 2012-2013. He submits that the petitioner has neither challenged the said mutation order nor sought any relief for setting aside the same. It is further contended that the petitioner is fully aware of the fact that the names of respondents No. 5 to 7 have already been recorded in the revenue records, yet he has deliberately chosen not to assail the order under which such mutation was effected. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot seek a direction from this Court for consideration of his mutation application filed in the year 2004 without first challenging the subsequent order passed in favour of respondents No. 5 to 7. Accordingly, it is argued that the present writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the names of respondents No. 5 to 7 have already been mutated in the revenue records pursuant to an order passed by the competent revenue authority during the year 2012-2013. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the said order, which continues to hold the field. In the absence of any challenge to the mutation order already passed in favour of respondents No. 5 to 7, no direction can be issued by this Court to the respondent authorities to consider the 4 petitioner's mutation application allegedly filed in the year 2004, as such a direction would virtually amount to ignoring or bypassing a subsisting order passed by the competent authority. The relief sought by the petitioner is, therefore, legally untenable and cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 6. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from challenging the mutation order passed in favour of respondents No. 5 to 7 before the appropriate forum, if so advised and permissible in law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat