1 CGHC010302412025 2026:CGHC:36953 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3835 of 2025 Balkrishna Verma S/o Late Shri Latelu Verma Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Telga, Tahsil Berla, District Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Board Of Revenue Circuit Court Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Commissioner Durg Division, District Durg, C.G. 3 - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G. 4 - Tahsildar Berla, District Bemetara, C.G. 5 - Vishal Nayak S/o Late Radheshyam Nayak R/o Village Bahera, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (Now Bemetara), C.G. 6 - Dr. Tarun Nayak S/o Late Radheshyam Nayak R/o Village Ward No. 55, Bahera, Tahsil Berla, District Durg (Now Bemetara), C.G. .. Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Thakur and Mr. Shikhar Sharma Advocates For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional A.G. For Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Poulami Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 18/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) of maintaining the order dated 16.02.2023 (Annexure P/2) as well as the order dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure P/3) 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 filed an application for mutation before the concerned Tahsildar under Sections 109 and 110 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959. However, all the legal heirs of Late Shri Radheshyam Nayak were not impleaded as parties in the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner, who was in possession of the property, filed an appeal before the concerned Collector, in which a Vakalatnama was filed by the other legal heirs of Late Shri Radheshyam Nayak. Upon considering the same, the concerned Collector directed the petitioner to implead the necessary parties, i.e., the remaining legal heirs of Late Shri Radheshyam Nayak. He further submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order 3 on the ground that, in the absence of any application seeking impleadment, the remaining legal heirs of Late Shri Radheshyam Nayak could not have been directed to be impleaded in the appeal. It is contended that at least some formal application was required to be filed and that impleadment could not have been directed merely on the basis of the Vakalatnama. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, approached the concerned Commissioner; however, the Commissioner also did not find any substance in the said contention and held that the concerned Collector had rightly passed the order and therefore, no interference was warranted. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue who has also affirmed the said order, observing that the concerned persons were necessary parties to the proceedings. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the contention raised by the petitioner and submits that the remaining legal heirs of Late Shri Radheshyam Nayak were necessary parties to the proceedings. The concerned Collector, therefore, rightly directed their impleadment which was subsequently affirmed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. He submits that the objection regarding non-filing of a separate application for impleadment is merely technical in nature. Hence, no interference is called for in the present petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and from 4 a perusal of the orders passed by the authorities, it appears that some of the legal heirs of Late Shri Radheshyam Nayak had not been impleaded in the proceedings. Once the said fact was brought to the notice of the concerned Collector and the Vakalatnama filed by the legal heirs disclosed their interest in the matter, the Collector rightly directed that the necessary parties, being the remaining legal heirs of Late Shri Radheshyam Nayak, be impleaded. In the opinion of this Court, the said order cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. So far as the requirement of filing a separate application for impleadment is concerned, such a technical objection cannot be permitted to prevail when it is an admitted position that the legal heirs of Late Shri Radheshyam Nayak had not been properly impleaded in the proceedings. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or with regard to the title, ownership, entitlement, or respective rights and shares of the parties in respect of the property in question. Since, as stated by the petitioner, a civil suit concerning the property in question is pending before the competent Civil Court, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all such grounds and contentions as may be available to her in law, including those relating to title, ownership, entitlement, share, and other consequential rights of the parties. The said issues shall be considered and adjudicated upon by the competent Court strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence available on record, without being influenced by 5 any observation made in the present order, as this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the aforesaid dispute. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL