1 CGHC010105962018 2026:CGHC:41374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1128 of 2021 1 - Sayet Ram Late Shri Sanuk Ram Aged About 45 Years Caste - Rajwar , Occupation Former , R/o Village Kanthi , Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector - Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shivcharan S/o Khora Aged About 56 Years Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Manna Ram S/o Khora Aged About 54 Years Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Gulab S/o Khora Aged About 48 Years Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - -1 Dinesh S/o Late Hakim Aged About 25 Years Occupation Cultivation , Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.23 16:04:56 +0530 2 5.1 - (2) Satyanrayan S/o Late Hakim Aged About 50 Years Occupation Cultivation, Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Baldew S/o Khora Aged About 50 Years Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Sangram S/o Parkash Aged About 48 Years Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Arjun S/o Ramnath Aged About 48 Years Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Parmanand S/o Ramsuder Aged About 46 Years Caste - Rajwar , R/o Village Kanthi, Tahsil - Ambikapur District Suraguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. S.A. Ansari, Advocate. For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No. 6 : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 3 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent, to the extent it relates to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the order passed by the Commissioner in proceedings relating to cancellation of the patta granted in favour of the petitioner’s father has been affirmed. It is submitted that although the Board of Revenue entertained the revision against the order passed by the Commissioner, it had no jurisdiction or authority to entertain or decide such a revision in view of Part 4 of the Revenue Book Circular. He further submits that, under Part 4 of the Revenue Book Circular, the State Government is competent to entertain a revision against an order passed by the Commissioner in matters relating to the grant or cancellation of patta. Since the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of the patta and the orders subsequently passed against him by the concerned Collector and Commissioner, the appropriate remedy available to him was to 4 approach the State Government under Part 4 of the Revenue Book Circular; however, instead of availing such remedy, the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue, which, without considering the issue of its own jurisdiction, proceeded to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, submit that the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional infirmity. It is contended that the Board of Revenue was competent to entertain and decide the revision, and that the petitioner has failed to establish any ground warranting interference with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. They, therefore, submit that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the Board of Revenue lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision against the order passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby set aside. However, as the petitioner has not availed the appropriate remedy before the competent authority and has directly approached the Board of Revenue, liberty is granted to him to avail the remedy available to him in law against the order passed by the competent authority, 5 before the appropriate forum. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, and the competent authority shall consider the matter strictly in accordance with law. 5. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. 6. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju