1 CGHC010221062026 2026:CGHC:34668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 650 of 2026 1 - Suresh Kumar Jagatramka (In Person) S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal Jagatramka Aged About 70 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) Mob. No. 7987230716 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Suresh Kumar Bansal S/o Santlal Bansal Aged About 66 Years R/o Friends Colony, Dhimrapur Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Nitish Kumar Agrawal S/o Naresh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Dargoa Para, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Suresh Kumar Jagatramka, Petitioner in Person For Respondent No.1/State : Mr.Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy.GA For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate through VC assisted by Mr. Jyotiraditya Tiwari, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 06/08/2026 The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Case No. RN/13/R/B-121/50/2020, whereby the Board of Revenue directed the parties to advance their arguments on the basis of the certified copies of the documents produced by the respondents, despite the fact that the original record of the subordinate revenue authorities had not been received by the Board. The petitioner seeks quashment of the said order on the ground that adjudication of the revision in the absence of the original record is contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that he has been prosecuting the revision petition before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue since the year 2020. It is contended that despite repeated requisitions issued by the Board of Revenue, the original record of the subordinate revenue authorities has not been transmitted by the authorities concerned. Instead, the respondents produced certified copies of certain documents before the Board of Revenue, and on the basis thereof, the Board directed that the revision be heard and decided. It is further submitted that in the absence of the original record, an effective and proper adjudication of the revision is not possible, as several relevant documents forming part of the record are necessary for 3 adjudication and cannot be substituted merely by certified copies produced by one of the parties. It is contended that once the Board of Revenue had already called for the original record, the revision ought not to have been proceeded with solely on the basis of the certified copies filed by the respondents. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the Board of Revenue be directed to summon the original record of the subordinate revenue authority and thereafter decide the revision afresh, in accordance with law, on its own merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents fairly submits that he has no objection if an appropriate direction is issued to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision on the basis of the original record of the subordinate revenue authorities after granting due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 4. I have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the order-sheet dated 07.05.2026 reveals that the Board of Revenue directed the parties to advance their submissions on the basis of the certified copies of the documents produced by the respondents. The order-sheet further records that while the records of the Commissioner, Bilaspur and the Additional Collector, Bilaspur had been received, the record of the Nazul Officer had not been received. Since the respondents had filed certified copies of documents from the 4 record of the Nazul Officer, the Board proceeded to direct that the revision be heard on the basis of those certified copies. 6. This Court is unable to approve such a course of action. A revision petition is required to be adjudicated on the basis of the original record of the subordinate authority. Merely because one of the parties is able to procure certified copies of certain documents from the record, the same cannot be treated as a substitute for the original record, particularly when the Board of Revenue has already requisitioned the record. The Board of Revenue possesses ample authority to secure the record from the subordinate authority and, if necessary, to issue appropriate directions or initiate suitable proceedings against the defaulting authority for non-compliance with its requisition. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the revision ought not to have been directed to be decided solely on the basis of the certified copies produced by the respondents in the absence of the original record. Such a procedure is contrary to the settled principles governing revisional jurisdiction and is likely to prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue is set aside. The Board of Revenue is directed to forthwith call for the original record of the concerned Nazul Officer and thereafter decide the pending revision afresh, in accordance with law, on its own merits, on the basis of the complete original record of the subordinate revenue authorities, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed 5 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.08.13 11:14:56 +0530