1 CGHC010350082022 2026:CGHC:41179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4588 of 2022 1 - Hari Singh S/o Chatur Singh Aged About 66 Years (Present Aged About 73 Years), Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Bharrakuda, Hardibazar, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) 2 - Mohitram (Died) Through Legal Heirs Nill 2.1 - (A) Beniram S/o Late Mohitram Aged About 57 Years At Present Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Bharrakuda, Hardibazar, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tehsildar Dipka Tahsil - Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Villagers Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) Through 6.1 - Baranlal S/o Late Banshilal Binjhwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 6.2 - Chamra Singh S/o Late Dhan Singh Kanwar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 6.3 - Mastram S/o Late Itwar Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 6.4 - Bhagwat Prasad S/o Panchram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 6.5 - Mansingh S/o Arjun Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 6.6 - Santosh Kumar S/o Rambilas Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 6.7 - Ramlal S/o Kaushal Kenwat Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 6.8 - Raju S/o Shobharam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 6.9 - Govind S/o Late Maniram Rathore Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Bharrakuda, Gram Panchayat Akhrapali, Police Station - Kushmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS system) For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Akanksha Verma, PL Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 passed by respondent No. 3 1/Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby their appeal preferred against the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, has been dismissed. The Board of Revenue, while dismissing the appeal, has held that the Additional Collector as well as the Commissioner have passed reasoned orders, holding that, in the revenue records, the land bearing Khasra No. 86, admeasuring 3.00 acres/1.214 hectares, is recorded as “Nipania Pond”, which was subsequently shown to have been transferred by Jyoti Bhusan Pratap Singh in favour of Hari Singh in the year 1983-84 and accordingly, the revenue records reflect the name of Hari Singh. It has further been recorded that there exists a pond over the said land, which is being used by the villagers for Nistari purposes, as duly certified in the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). Thereafter, the Collector directed the Additional Collector, Korba, to conduct an inquiry, pursuant to which the Additional Collector submitted a report dated 12.08.2015. In the said report, it has been stated that, in view of Section 251(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, “the Act of 1959”), once the pond had vested, no objection was raised by any of the parties within a period of four years. It has further been observed that the pond was subsequently sold by describing it as unirrigated land, whereas, in fact, it is a pond being used by the villagers for their day-to-day requirements, including fetching water and watering their cattle. It has also been 4 recorded that the sale of the land belonging to the pond by describing it as unirrigated land was not in accordance with law. Further, there is a specific report to the effect that the said pond remains filled with water and is being used by the villagers as a Nistari pond. Accordingly, the concerned Collector as well as the Commissioner passed orders directing deletion of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders and are seeking the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue and further may kindly be pleased to dismiss the case of the pond/tank of vesting in state govt. which has arising before the respondent No.3 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the pond in question has never vested in the State and the land was originally owned by Rani Sahiba Dhanraj Kunwar, as duly recorded in the revenue records and subsequently, Jyoti Bhusan Pratap Singh sold the disputed land, whereafter the petitioners came into possession thereof. He further submits that their names were also duly recorded in the revenue records. It is, therefore, 5 submitted that the order directing vesting of the land in the State and correction of the revenue records is not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 whereby the orders passed by the revenue Courts have been affirmed, is illegal and unsustainable in law and therefore, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the concerned revenue authority, i.e., the Collector, directed an inquiry into the matter and called for a report from the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Pursuant thereto, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) conducted an inquiry and found that the land in question had been illegally sold to the petitioners, whereas, in fact, the disputed land is a pond filled with water and, therefore, the sale itself was not in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the villagers have categorically stated that the disputed pond is being used for Nistari purposes by the entire village. It is also submitted that the vesting of the pond in the State and its use as a Nistari pond was never objected to within the prescribed period and therefore, the names of the petitioners cannot be recorded in the revenue records. Further, on the basis of the order passed by the concerned Collector, the Additional Collector also conducted an inquiry and submitted a report dated 6 12.08.2015, wherein it has been categorically stated that the disputed land is not unirrigated land, as described in the disputed sale deed, but is, in fact, a pond filled with water and being used by the villagers as a Nistari pond. Accordingly, it is submitted that the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. The orders passed by the three concurrent revenue Courts are in accordance with law and do not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, as well as the orders passed by the concerned Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, it is evident that it has been categorically stated therein that the disputed land is a pond submerged under water. The said pond is locally known as “Bade Talab” and “Paithu Talab” and is recorded in the revenue records as “Nipania Talab”. The said pond is being used as a Nistari pond by the villagers, which fact has been duly confirmed in the report submitted by the concerned SDO (R) as well as in the report submitted by the Additional Collector. The sale deed has been executed by describing the land as unirrigated land, which is incorrect on the face of the record, as the disputed property is, in fact, a pond being used by the villagers for Nistari purposes. The same has also been duly certified in the reports submitted by the concerned authorities. The Missal documents also reflect that the land is submerged under water. If the land is submerged under water, the concerned 7 Collector has the power and authority to manage the same in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The land has been recorded as a Nistari pond in the revenue records which confirms that it is not the exclusive property of any particular person, but is being used as a common property of the village for Nistari purposes. This factual position has been affirmed by all three Revenue Courts. Therefore, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the concurrent findings recorded by the Revenue Courts do not warrant interference unless there is any glaring error or perversity in such findings. 5. From perusal of the documents available on record, it is quite vivid that the orders passed by the three Revenue Courts are in accordance with law. There is no dispute that the land in question is recorded in the revenue records as a Nistari pond. In view thereof, the claim of the petitioners that they had purchased the disputed property as unirrigated land cannot be accepted. 6. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL