1 CGHC010132742022 2026:CGHC:38346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2122 of 2022 1 - Khoman Singh S/o Late Gyanendra Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Semariya, Tahsil- Aarang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nagendra Singh S/o Late Harendra Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Semariya, Tahsil Aarang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dharmendra Singh S/o Late Harendra Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Semariya, Tahsil- Aarang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Hemlal Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Dunda, Police Station-Tikrapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.02 17:03:20 +0530 2 31/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : i. That, the order dated 10.02.2020 as passed by Learned Board of Revenue Bilaspur may kindly be quash and consequently order passed by Additional Commissioner, Raipur and Tahsildar Aarang in favour of the Manoj may kindly be set aside/quash. ii. That, Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the mutation order dated 12.1.2018 passed against a deceased person by the concerned Tehsildar is nullity in the eyes of law. The said order was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) in appeal and subsequently before the Commissioner, Raipur, Division, Raipur and the Board of Revenue. However, all the aforesaid authorities confirmed the order of the Tehsildar, holding that the Civil Court has passed binding orders on the matter which cannot be interfered with by the Revenue Courts. He further submits that the petitioner was never impleaded as a party to the proceedings before either the Civil Court or the Revenue Courts and therefore, the impugned orders are not binding upon him. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the impugned orders were correctly passed, which 3 call for no interference. 4. Evidently, concurrent orders dated 20.3.2018 (passed by Additional Collector, Raipur), 27.3.2019 (passed by Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur) and 10.2.2020 (passed by the Board of Revenue) were passed by the three Revenue Courts, in addition to the judgment passed by the concerned Civil Court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Courts finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three Revenue Courts, which rightly held that the decision of the Civil Court is binding upon revenue proceedings. However, as contended by the petitioner, since the proceedings were conducted against a deceased person without impleading the petitioner as a party respondent, the resultant orders/decrees are non-binding upon the petitioner. In view of the above, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to institute an appropriate civil suit or prefer a suitable application before the competent authority/Court to agitate his rights in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay