1 CGHC010337562026 2026:CGHC:39639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1182 of 2026 • Balmukund Sai S/o Late Parnu Sai, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Tuba, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Tejpati Yadav S/o Ahiwaran, R/o Village Jhora, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.). 2. Ranjeet Yadav S/o Giridhari Yadav R/o Village Dhaurasand, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Case No. M/07/विविध/अ-39/49/2026, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 8 read with section 32 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code, 1959’) and application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 has been rejected. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a lease was granted to one Ahiwaran of the land bearing Khasra No.25/1 admeasuring 2 acres situated at Village Tuba, Tehsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) in the year 1977-1978. The said land was recorded in the name of Ahiwaran as Khasra No.25/72. In the year, 2003, the petitioner purchased the said land from Ahiwaran through registered sale deed dated 29.10.2003 and since then, he is in possession over the subject land and his name was also mutated in the revenue record. Subsequently, respondent No.1, who is the daughter of Ahiwaran, made a complaint before the State Authorities that the subject land was fraudulently get transferred by the petitioner in his name. In her complaint, it has also been averred that without obtaining prior permission of the Collector with respect to alienation of the land, the sale deed was executed, and therefore, the said transaction may be quashed and the land may be reverted back to her. After conducting an enquiry and after recording statement of the witnesses, the Collector Jashpur found that the subject land was allotted to Ahiwaran on lease and he sold the said land without prior permission of the District Collector, therefore, appropriate proceedings may be drawn against him and the Collector cancelled the lease granted in favour of the Ahiwaran and referred the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Farsabahar to draw appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. He would further submit that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.10.2025 before the Commissioner, Surguja Division by filing an appeal, which is pending for its consideration bearing Appeal No.202511960100118. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Tehsildar Farsabahar complied the order passed by the Collector, 3 Jashpur (C.G.), initiated the execution proceedings and issued a memo to the concerned Patwari for removal of the possession of the petitioner from the subject land. The said Memo (Annexure-P/6) was issued on 05.05.2026, against which, the petitioner filed an application under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code, 1959 before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue as on erroneous ground rejected the application filed by the petitioner and also rejected the application for grant of stay, which is the subject matter in the present writ petition. He would further submit that the Board of Revenue has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that as per Part 4 Serial No.3 of the Revenue Book Circular, the matter pertains to the grant of Government Lease and any order passed by the Commissioner is not appealable before the Board of Revenue, but the matter is to be heard by the State Government. He would also submit that the Commissioner has not passed any order, and therefore, the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code, 1959. He would further submit that the petitioner has purchased the subject land in the year, 2003 and he is in possession since then. If the petitioner would be dispossessed from the subject land, he would be in irreparable loss. Despite pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner Surguja Division, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the Board of Revenue may be directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner on merits. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 4 5. The appeal is pending before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, against the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Collector, Jashpur (C.G.) is not in dispute. The petitioner has filed the details of the proceedings pending before the Commissioner Surguja Division (Annexure-P/5). 6. From perusal of the said documents, it transpires that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Commissioner Surguja Division and on 17.04.2026, the application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner Surguja Division. The petitioner could not demonstrate that whether any appeal was preferred against the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, dismissing the application under Section 52 of the Code of 1959. 7. The petitioner, by way of an application under Section 8 read with Section 32 of the Code, 1959 challenged the memo (Annexure-P/6) issued by the Tehsildar Farsabahar with respect to the execution order passed by the Collector, Jashpur (C.G.). By the said memo (Annexure- P/6), concerned Patwari was directed to remove the encroachment of the petitioner from the subject land and the same was challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. 8. The Board of Revenue has considered the provisions of Revenue Book Circular Part-4 Serial No.3 and also considered that the matter pertains to grant of lease in favour of Ahiwaran from whom the petitioner is claiming that he purchased the subject land in the year, 2003. 9. In view of the aforesaid provision of the Revenue Book Circular, particularly Clause 30, the position appears to be that where the 5 original allotment order is passed by the Collector, an appeal lies before the Commissioner within 45 days, and the order passed in such appeal is made final, while a revision against the original allotment order passed by the Collector is maintainable before the Commissioner only where the remedy of appeal under Clause 30(1) was available but was not availed of. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, against the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Collector, Jashpur (C.G.), and the said appeal is still pending consideration. Therefore, the legality and effect of the order of the Collector, including the cancellation of the lease and the consequential action for restoration of the land, are matters which are directly connected with the subject matter of the pending appeal and cannot appropriately be examined simultaneously in collateral proceedings before the Board of Revenue under Sections 8 and 32 of the Code, 1959. Moreover, the petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that any further statutory remedy has been availed against the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner rejecting his application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959. In such circumstances, this Court, exercising limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, finds no justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.05.2026, particularly when the petitioner has an efficacious proceeding pending before the Commissioner, Surguja Division. However, having regard to the fact that consequential proceedings for dispossession are stated to have been initiated during pendency of the appeal, the Commissioner, Surguja Division, is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal expeditiously, 6 preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of directing Commissioner Surguja Division to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the next fixed before it and till then ‘status quo’ as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties with respect to the subject land and no third party interest shall be created by any of the party. Petitioner is directed to file a copy of this order before the proceedings of the Commissioner Surguja Division within a period of one week. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Deepti Jha