1 CGHC010143032018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 404 of 2018 Ramkrit Sao ( Dead ) Through LRs- 1. Suresh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ramkrit Sao Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kansabail Police Station Kansabail Tehsil Kansabail District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Ramkrit Sao Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Kansabail Police Station Kansabail Tehsil Kansabail District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Nanda Ram S/o Shri Radheshyam 2 - Nand Lal S/o Shri Radheshyam 3 - Shyam S/o Shri Ganpat 4 - Muneswar S/o Shri Hari Ram 5 - Sukhsagar S/o Shri Hari Ram 6 - Kastu S/o Shri Baneswar 7 - Ganesh S/o Shri Laxman 8 - Mahesh S/o Shri Laxman All by Caste Bhuihar R/o Village Kansabail Tehsil And P.S. Kansabail District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 9 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri AN Bhakta and Shri KN Nande, Advocates. For Respondents 1, 2, : Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate along with & 4 to 8 Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Karan Bahrani, Panel Lawyer. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.09.25 17:47:50 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 25.09.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Surguja in Revenue Appeal Case No.133/A-23/2014-15 whereby the Commissioner Surguja Division has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Collector, Jashpur. 2. The present writ petition was initially filed by Ramkrit Sao, who died during pendency of the writ petition and thereafter his legal representatives i.e. the present petitioners, have been substituted on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents made a complaint before the Minority Commission of India, New Delhi, with respect to their defraudation by the father of petitioners namely Ramkrit Sao. The matter, in turn, was sent to District Collector Jashpur and ultimately it was referred to concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kansabel (in short, The SDO) where a proceeding under Section 170-B of The Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short, The Code) was initiated. Case was registered and notices were issued to the respective parties and report were called from the concerned Halka Patwari. The SDO, Kansabel, after hearing the parties, passed its order on 27.06.2008 by which a direction for payment of difference amount of the value of the land was made against the present petitioners. While considering the case by the 3 SDO, it was observed in its order that the house of the petitioners are already constructed on or about 1975-76 and they are in possession much prior to 1984. Therefore, instead of reverting the land to aboriginal tribe, the SDO directed to pay the difference amount of value of land to the aboriginal tribe. Pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2008 the petitioners paid the ordered amount and submitted receipt before the SDO on 04.08.2008. The present respondents challenged the orders dated 27.06.2008 and 04.08.2008 before the Collector Jashpur and after hearing the parties, the Collector, Jashpur, set aside the order passed by the SDO and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on its own merit. 4. The order passed by the Collector, Jashpur dated 22.07.2015 was challenged in Second Appeal by the petitioners which has also been dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2017 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the house of the petitioners have already been constructed much prior to 1984 and the Collector Jashpur, only on the ground that no signature of respondents appear in the order sheet of the SDO, it amounts to non providing opportunity of hearing to them, remitted the matter back for fresh consideration after setting aside the order passed by the SDO. He would further submit that since the petitioners have acquired their title over the suit land by virtue of sale deed executed by the respondents, they may not be directed to pay the difference amount of the value of the land as provided under Section170-B of the Code. There is no defraudation by the petitioners to the aboriginal tribe. He would further submit that though the petitioners have filed suit against the order 4 passed by the Collector, Jashpur dated 22.07.2015, however, the said civil suit has been dismissed as not maintainable under the provisions of Section 257 (l-1) of the Code and therefore dismissal of civil suit has no bearing in the consideration before the SDO and as such they may be permitted to defend their case before the SDO and dismissal of civil suit may not come on the way of proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties there. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 8 opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and have submitted that the petitioners have suppressed dismissal of civil suit during the proceeding before the Commissioner. Since the civil suit filed by the petitioners have already been dismissed by the Civil Court vide its order dated 18.01.2021 in Civil Suit No.23-A/2015, they have no right to again raise their grievance before the SDO. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. The sequence of events are not in dispute in the present case that the SDO passed an order on 27.06.2008 directing the petitioners to pay the difference amount of the value of the land under dispute which was challenged by the respondents before the Collector, Jashpur, who, in turn, after setting aside the order of SDO dated 27.06.2008, remitted the matter back for fresh consideration and Second Appeal filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, has been dismissed vide order 26.09.2017. It is also not in dispute that civil suit 5 filed by the petitioners has already been dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2021 on the ground of its maintainability as provided under Section 257(l-1) of the Code. When the order passed by the SDO dated 27.06.2008 is set aside by the Collector, Jashpur vide its order dated 22.07.2015 and the matter was remitted back there for fresh consideration, there appears to be no effective order exist as on date either in favour of the petitioners or in favour of the respondents. Rather, the proceeding is still pending before the SDO for its fresh consideration as per the order passed by the Collector, Jashpur. It is not a case where the petitioners are challenging the proceeding before the SDO that it was not maintainable. Therefore, since there is no effective order exists as on date against or in favour of either of the parties and proceeding is pending before the SDO, this court deem it appropriate to direct the parties to approach the concerned SDO for redressal of their grievance where proceeding under Section 170-B of the Code is already pending for its consideration. 8. The parties are at liberty to make their submissions before the SDO concerned and the SDO concerned, in turn, is directed to decide the proceeding in accordance with law on its own merits after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in expeditious manner. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. 10. The interim order dated 04.05.2018 stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder