1 CGHC010312142026 2026:CGHC:36969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1053 of 2026 1 - Parvati W/o Mayaram Aged About 40 Years Caste - Chauhan R/o Village Devarghata, P.S. And Tehsil Dhabhra, Present District Sakti Chhattisgarh (Correct Is W/o Mayaram Wrongly Mentioned As D/o In The Order Dated 07- 05-2026 Passed By Board Of Revenue) 2 - Kanchanmati W/o Late Jogiram Aged About 65 Years Caste Chauhan, R/o Village Devarghata, P.S. And Tehsil - Dabhra, Present District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Laxmi Chauhan S/o Dokri Alias Nanki Dokri Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Devarghata, P.S. And Tehsil - Dhabhra, Present District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakant Sethi, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.19 16:31:13 +0530 2 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./33/R/A-6/294/2023, whereby the revenue revision filed by the respondent has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they are the legal heir of Jogiram who was the brother of Late Bhagatram. Jogiram was in the employment of SECL and he gave money to purchase property to his brother Bhagatram, however, instead of purchasing the property in the name of both the persons, Bhagatram purchased the property on his own name alone and get the property mutated in the revenue record in this name alone. When the fact came into knowledge of Jogiram, he filed an application for addition of his name also in the revenue record alongwith his brother Bhagatram before the Tehsildar, Dabhara. The Tehsildar, Dabhara had passed an order on 13.09.2010 directing for mutation of the name of Jogiram alongwith Bhagatram in the revenue record of the subject land. Thereafter, the name of Jogiram was mutated alongwith the name of Bhagatram in the revenue record. Subsequently, in the year, 2019-20, the nephew of Jogiram filed an appeal before the SDO(Revenue), Dabhara against the order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the Tehsildar, Dabhara alongwih an application under Section 5 of the Limitation act. On 06.04.2021, the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and leave was granted to file appeal against the order passed by the Tehsildar, Dabhara dated 13.09.2010 and ultimately, the appeal has been decided on 23.06.2021 by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Tehsildar, Dabhara. He would further submit that against the order passed by the 3 SDO (Revenue), Dabhara, the petitioners filed their second appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur which has been dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2023 and the said order was challenged by the respondent before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur and vide order dated 07.05.2026, the Board of Revenue allowed the revision filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division as well as the Tehsildar, Dabhara and upheld the order passed the SDO (Revenue), Dabhara which is under challenge in the present writ petition. He would further submit that the appeal filed by the nephew of Jogiram was not maintainable as he has no locus to file the appeal and challenge the order passed by the Tehsildar, Dabhara as he neither the legal heir of Class-I nor the legal representative of the deceased background. When the appeal itself was not maintainable, no order can be passed in favour of the respondent, yet the SDO (Revenue), Dabhara and Board of Revenue, Bilaspur passed the order in favour of the respondent. He would further submit that the petitioners are having preferential right over the respondent as they are the legal heir of the Jogiram who is the Class-II heir of Bhagatram, therefore, instead of mutation order in favour of the respondent, the petitioners are entitled to get their name mutated in the revenue record of the subject land, therefore, the revenue authorities may be directed to delete the name of the respondent and directed for mutation of the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the writ petition. 4 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the sale deed of the subject land was executed in the name of Bhagatram alone, although no any date of execution of the sale deed has been mentioned in any of the record annexed with the writ petition but at present, the date of the execution of the sale deed is not in dispute. The claims of the petitioners are that they are the legal heir of the Jogiram who was the brother of the Bhagatram and it is the claim of the Jogiram that he paid money to purchase the subject property to Bhagatram, however, Bhagatram had purchased the property in his own name, therefore, Jogiram was also having the right and title over the suit property and after death of Jogiram in the year, 2014, the petitioners had the right and title over the suit property and entitled for mutation, however, the petitioners failed to produce any document with respect to acquisition of any title over the suit property. Merely by saying that the sale consideration was provided by Jogiram would not be sufficient to observe any title in his favour over the suit property. He also have not produced any bank record or service record in which he extracted the money for payment of sale consideration to Bhagatram. 6. So far as the maintainability of the appeal before the SDO (Revenue), Dabhara is concerned, admittedly the respondent is the nephew of Jogiram who is the son of another brother of Bhagatram and the status of Laxmi Chauhan as well as the present petitioner No.1 is the same. Both of them have come under the Clause-IV of Class II of the Schedule as framed under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. When the petitioners claim that they are the legal heir of one brother of Bhagatram then the present respondent is also legal heir of 5 another brother of Bhagatram, therefore, it can not be said that he can not maintain the appeal before the SDO (Revenue). From considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the documents annexed with writ petition and after having gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit