1 CGHC010278902026 2026:CGHC:36167-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 748 of 2026 1 - Satpal Singh Saluja S/o Late Shri Devendra Singh Saluja Aged About 47 Years R/o Behind Revenue Office, Civil Lines, Manendrragarh, District Manendragarh, Chirmiri Bharatpur C.G. 2 - Upkar Kesharwani, S/o Shiv Shanker Kesharwani Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Moharpara, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh, Chirmiri Bharatpur C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Commissioner, Sarguja Division, District Manendragarh, Chirmiri Bharatpur C.G. 3 - Collector District Magistrte District Manendragarh, Chirmiri Bharatpur C.G. 4 - Nirajkant Tiwari Tahsildar Bharatpur District Manendragarh, Chirmiri Bharatpur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.18 10:17:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.3027/2026, by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.08.2026 passed in WA No.708/2026 (Satpal Singh Saluja vs. State of Chhattisgarh), wherein this Court held as under:- “7. In the impugned order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge it has been observed in para 6 to 10 that :- "6. After perusal of the order dated 17.7.2025 and the documents annexed to the appeal, the concerned Commissioner observed that while considering the application in Revenue Case No.202409 330100020/A-89/21/2023-24, the Collector found that the prepared map(s) was not in 3 accordance with law. Meanwhile, the Collector also passed orders directing the registration of an FIR, suspension of the revenue officers and initiation of a Departmental Enquiry against them. aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue authorities Being preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, the appellate authority superior to the Collector. In the first place, even if the order of the Collector is taken into consideration, the conclusion that the maps. prepared by the revenue officers were not in accordance with law, is a finding that falls within the administrative purview of the Commissioner, who must verify whether the maps were legally prepared or not. Secondly, regarding the allegation of malafide usage of map by respondent No.4 and other revenue officers, the Collector's order dated 17.7.2025 is premature. Such an order cannot attain finality unless and until the Commissioner concludes that the maps were either illegally prepared or utilized with malafide intent. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the since subject matter is presently pending final hearing before the Commissioner, the stay order cannot be vacated at this stage solely on the basis of the application of the petitioners/ complainants. Further, under Section 52 of 4 the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (in short "the Code"), the Commissioner is fully empowered to stay the effect and operation of the order passed by the Collector. In my view, the Commissioner, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Code, rightly granted stay, which should not be vacated or interfered with on the ground that registration of an FIR cannot be stayed. 8. Moreover, from a perusal of the order dated 17.7.2025 passed by the concerned Collector, it is quite vivid that the Collector's directions pertain to preparation of maps. Hence, unless it is established that these maps were illegally prepared by the concerned revenue employees, the Collector's order cannot be directed to be executed. Since the Collector passed the order dated 17.7.2025 on a mere complaint, the aggrieved revenue employees affected thereby possess a right to challenge it. 9. For the foregoing, since the matter is pending final adjudication before the Commissioner, at this stage, I do not consider the present to be a fit case to interfere with the impugned order(s) or to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the Petitions are dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue their case before the Commissioner 5 in accordance with law." 8. From perusal of the material available in the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioners had approached the learned Single Judge challenging the Commissioner's order dated 02.06.2026, whereby their application for vacation of the interim protection granted to the concerned Revenue Officers was rejected. The learned Single Judge, after considering the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Collector and the material placed before the Commissioner, noticed that the legality of the revenue maps and the allegation of their mala fide use were matters falling for consideration in the pending appeal before the Commissioner. It was further observed that the Collector had, apart from recording findings regarding the maps, directed registration of an FIR, suspension of the concerned officers and initiation of departmental proceedings, and that such consequential directions could not attain finality unless the underlying findings regarding the legality of the maps and their alleged mala fide use were adjudicated by the competent appellate authority. The learned Single Judge further held that, since the appeal was pending final adjudication before the Commissioner, the interim protection could not be vacated merely at the instance of the petitioners, particularly when the Commissioner was competent to stay the operation of the Collector's order under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The learned Single Judge, therefore, 6 declined to interfere with the Commissioner's order and dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to pursue their case before the Commissioner in accordance with law. 9. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find no error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The issues raised by the appellants essentially relate to the legality of the revenue maps and the consequential action directed by the Collector, which are already the subject matter of the pending statutory appeal before the Commissioner. At this stage, interference with the interim protection granted by the competent appellate authority is not warranted, particularly when the appellants/petitioners have already been impleaded and have been granted liberty to pursue their case before the Commissioner. We, therefore, find no ground to exercise our appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed. 10. The appellants shall be at liberty to raise all their contentions before the Commissioner, who shall decide the pending appeal in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the order of the learned Single Judge or in the present judgment.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No.708/2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in same terms. 7 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No.708/2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No.708/2026. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 13.08.2026 passed in WA No.708/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu