1 CGHC010192552018 2026:CGHC:40516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 581 of 2018 Radhamani W/o W/o Shri Sukhdar Baghel Aged About 48 Years R/o Acting In The Premise Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Sukdhar Baghel, S/o Shri Sonadhar Baghel, R/o Village Haathkachora, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. .................Appellant., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mohan Prasad Panigrahi (Death) S/o Through Legal Representatives- 1.1 - Smt. Rikha Devi Panigrahi, W/o Late Mohan Panigrahi, Aged About 79 Years R/o Village Haat Kachora, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Umesh Chandra Panigrahi (Dead) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 08-12-2020. 1.2.1 - (A) Smt. Bina Panigrahi W/o Late Umesh Chandra Panigrahi Aged About 58 Years Resident Of Village - Haat Kachora, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1.2.2 - (B) Uttam Panigrahi S/o Late Umesh Panigrahi Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Village - Haat Kachora, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1.2.3 - (C) Hemant Panigrahi S/o Late Umesh Panigrahi Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village - Haat Kachora, Tehsil - Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Ved Prakash Panigrahi S/o Late Mohan Prasad Panigrahi, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Haat Kachora, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Dinesh Chandra Panigrahi (Died) S/o Late Mohan Prasad Panigrahi Through Legal Heirs- 1.4.1 - (A) Manmohini Panigrahi W/o Late Dinesh Chandra Panigrahi, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Haat Kachora, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.18 18:01:47 +0530 2 1.4.2 - (B) Thailesh Panigrahi S/o Late Dinesh Chandra Panigrahi Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Haat Kachora, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 1.4.3 - (C) Swati Panigrahi D/o Late Dinesh Chandra Panigrahi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Haat Kachora, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 1.4.4 - (D) Doli Panigrahi D/o Late Dinesh Chandra Panigrahi, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Haat Kachora, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 1.4.5 - (E) Deepika Panigrahi D/o Late Dinesh Chandra Panigrahi, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Haat Kachora, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ...............Non Applicants., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. .................Non Applicant., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh,, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 16/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, in Second Appeal No.163/A-70/12-13, whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, came to be dismissed. 3 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner, Radhamani, is the wife of Sukhdhar Baghel, whereas Sukhdhar Baghel had represented her before the authorities below in his capacity as her Power of Attorney Holder. Despite the registered Power of Attorney executed in his favour, the proceedings came to be treated as a dispute between Sukhdhar Baghel and Mohan Prasad Panigrehi, resulting in an erroneous consideration of the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner has, therefore, placed the correct description of the parties before this Court to set the record straight. 3. The Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, in Revenue Case No.6/A-70/05-06, by order dated 07.05.2008 passed under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, had allowed her application and directed removal of the respondent’s alleged illegal possession from Khasra No. 83, admeasuring 0.30 hectare out of the total area of 1.90 hectare, situated at village Haathkachora, Jagdalpur. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, which was allowed by order dated 31.07.2009, on the ground that there was no document on record substantiating the authority of Sukhdhar Baghel to act as the petitioner’s Power of Attorney Holder. Instead of examining the claim on its merits, the Sub- Divisional Officer non-suited the petitioner on the aforesaid technical ground. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in the second appeal before the Commissioner, the registered Power of Attorney dated 06.01.2004 was brought on record, and the same had in fact been produced before the Tahsildar, who, upon objection, compared its copy with the original 4 and thereafter returned the original to Sukhdhar Baghel. The petitioner relies upon the certified copy of the registered Power of Attorney as well as the written submissions filed before the Commissioner to contend that the authority of Sukhdhar Baghel to represent the petitioner was duly demonstrated before the revenue authorities. It is, therefore, submitted that the Commissioner, while passing the impugned order dated 28.11.2017, ought to have considered the matter on its merits instead of merely affirming the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer on the question of the Power of Attorney. The petitioner also challenges that in the Civil suit No. 05-A/2006, judgment and decree were passed on 29.10.2014, in which she was not a party to the said civil suit and, consequently, the findings recorded therein could not have been applied against her in the present proceedings. The petitioner further relies upon the revenue records, particularly Form B-1 for the year 2017-18, wherein she is recorded as the owner and Sukhdhar Baghel is shown as her husband, to substantiate her identity and status in relation to the disputed land. The petitioner, therefore, seeks interference with the impugned orders and a direction to the competent revenue authority to reconsider and decide the proceedings afresh on merits, after verifying the registered Power of Attorney and, if considered necessary, examining the petitioner herself regarding its execution and the authority conferred upon Sukhdhar Baghel. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are perverse, contrary to the material available on record and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 5 He would submit that the Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, by order dated 07.05.2008, had considered the petitioner’s claim under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, and had recorded a finding in her favour with regard to her entitlement over the disputed land and possession thereof. However, the appellate authorities, instead of examining the correctness of the said findings on merits, have declined to consider the substantive dispute on the ground relating to the representation of the petitioner through her Power of Attorney Holder. He would further submit that the mere fact that the proceedings before the authorities below were conducted through Sukhdhar Baghel could not have furnished a valid ground to non-suit the petitioner, particularly when the registered Power of Attorney dated 06.01.2004 was available on record, and its authenticity had been verified by the Tahsildar by comparing the same with the original. He would submit that the objection regarding the authority of the Power of Attorney Holder was essentially a technical objection and, once the registered instrument was brought on record, the authorities were required to adjudicate the actual dispute between the parties rather than reject the petitioner’s claim without entering into its merits. 6. It is next submitted that the appellate authorities have failed to examine whether the respondent was, in fact, in illegal possession of the disputed portion of Khasra No. 83 and whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code. There is no effective adjudication of the findings recorded by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner, nor has any cogent reason been assigned for displacing those findings on merits. The real controversy 6 between the parties has thus remained undecided, and the petitioner has been denied consideration of her substantive rights merely on a technical ground. It is also submitted that the reliance placed upon the judgment dated 29.10.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2006 is misplaced, as the petitioner was not a party to the said proceedings and the findings recorded therein could not have been mechanically applied against her without examining their applicability to the present dispute. He would further point out that the revenue record, including Form B-1, supports the petitioner’s status in relation to the disputed property, which aspect also required proper consideration by the authorities. It is further submitted that the duty of a Court or quasi- judicial authority is to determine the real controversy between the parties and not to defeat a claim solely on technicalities when the relevant material is available on record. The authorities below, by declining to examine the matter on merits, have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them and have acted in an illegal and unreasonable manner. He would, therefore, pray that the impugned orders be set aside and the matter be remitted to the competent revenue authority for fresh adjudication on merits after taking into consideration the registered Power of Attorney and the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law. 7. Learned State counsel, while opposing the petition, would submit that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. She would submit that the Sub- Divisional Officer, upon examination of the record, found that Sukhdhar 7 Baghel had initiated and prosecuted the proceedings without there being any material before the authority at the relevant stage to establish that he was duly authorised by the petitioner to represent her, and the Commissioner, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, has rightly affirmed the said order. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot seek to introduce a new factual foundation at this belated stage by relying upon the alleged registered Power of Attorney, particularly when the petitioner herself did not pursue the proceedings before the authorities below. Learned State counsel would further submit that the revenue authorities have passed the impugned orders after considering the material available on record and that no perversity, failure to exercise jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice has been demonstrated so as to justify interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, pray for dismissal of the petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition and gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the substantive dispute between the parties has not been adjudicated on merits by the appellate revenue authorities. The Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, by order dated 07.05.2008 passed under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, had allowed the application and directed removal of the alleged illegal possession from Khasra No. 83, admeasuring 0.30 hectare out of the total area of 1.90 hectare situated at village Haathkachora, Jagdalpur. 8 However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, while allowing the appeal, proceeded on the ground that Sukhdhar Baghel had failed to establish his authority to represent the petitioner as her Power of Attorney Holder, and the Commissioner, in the second appeal, affirmed the said order. The petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the registered Power of Attorney dated 06.01.2004 and asserts that the same had been produced before the Tahsildar and was compared with the original. Thus, the question whether the petitioner had duly authorised Sukhdhar Baghel to represent her is essentially a factual issue which ought to be considered along with the substantive claim. 10. The questions as to whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of possession, whether the respondent is in illegal possession of the disputed land, and what would be the effect, if any, of the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2006, are matters which require examination by the competent revenue authority on the basis of the pleadings and material legally admissible before it. The fact that the petitioner was not a party to the said civil suit, as asserted by her, may also be considered by the competent authority while determining the applicability and effect of the said judgment. This Court, therefore, refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective claims of the parties. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the very initiation of the proceedings before the Tahsildar was not by the recorded landowner, namely, Manmati, but by Sukhdhar Baghel in his own capacity, and there is no material on record to establish that he was duly authorised to institute the proceedings on behalf of the landowner. Consequently, 9 the order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, as well as the consequential orders dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur and 28.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar Jagdalpur for deciding the case afresh. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to file a fresh and duly constituted application before the Tahsildar concerned, which shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party, and all questions relating to maintainability, entitlement, possession and the applicability of Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, shall remain open for consideration by the competent authority, independently and uninfluenced by any observation made by the authorities below or by this Court in the present order. 13. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok