1 CGHC010366192026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1241 of 2026 Ravishankar S/o Late Hemlal Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kheerbai D/o Late Hemlal R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Laxmin Bai W/o Late Hemlal R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Bamhnidih, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh Presenlty R/o Village Kadmahakhan, Tehsil And District- Korba Chhattisgarh .. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 23/09/2026 Heard. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.23 18:45:41 +0530 2 Revenue, Bilaspur in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./06/R/A- 6/166/2023, whereby the revision filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed and the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, as well as the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Tehsildar, have been set aside and the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa has been restored. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had made an application before the Tehsildar on 07.09.2021 for mutation of his name in the subject land on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 18.01.1993. The petitioner had purchased the subject land from its owner, Hemlal, after payment of the entire sale consideration. During the mutation proceedings, preliminary objection was raised by respondent No.1, which was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 12.11.2021. The said order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa by filing a revision under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The said revision was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2022 and the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Tehsildar was set aside. The order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Additional Collector was thereafter challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and the revision preferred by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 24.03.2023. The order passed by the Additional Collector was set aside and the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Tehsildar was affirmed. Respondent No.1 thereafter challenged the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, vide impugned order dated 24.11.2025, allowed the revision filed by respondent No.1 and set 3 aside the order passed by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the original mutation proceedings are still pending before the Tehsildar and, therefore, the Tehsildar may be directed to conclude the mutation proceedings initiated on the application filed by the petitioner within a reasonable time. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, it transpires that on 07.09.2021, mutation proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name over the subject land. The objection raised by respondent No.1 was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 12.11.2021. The said order was challenged before the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Champa, who allowed the revision vide order dated 07.03.2022. The said order was thereafter challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, who allowed the revision preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 24.03.2023 and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. The order dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner was thereafter challenged by respondent No.1 before the Board of Revenue, which, vide impugned order dated 24.11.2025, allowed the revision. However, it appears from the record that the original mutation proceedings are still pending before the Tehsildar. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the fact that the original mutation proceedings are still pending before the Tehsildar Bamhnidih is directed to proceed 4 with Revenue Case No. 202109062400013/A-6/2020-21 pending before it and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law and on its own merits, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok