1 CGHC010221962023 2026:CGHC:42617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3137 of 2023 1 - Rajnath S/o Tibhali Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bathoura, Tahsil Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Amravati D/o Devnarayan Aged About 37 Years W/o Hemnath, R/o Village Bathoura, Tahsil Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Board Of Revenue Through The Member Bilaspur Post And District- Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Commissioner, Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - The Deputy Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 6 - The Naib Tahsildar Office Of Tahsildar, Balrampur 2 7 - Maldev S/o Agarsai R/o Village Bathoura, Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. and Mr. Harshal Chauhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30.09 .2026 1. The petitioners has prayed for following reliefs; “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 21.06.23 Annexure P-1 passed by the member Board of Revenue Bilaspur District Bilaspur. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to upheld the order passed by Additional Revenue Divisional Commissioner Surguja Divisional Ambikapur vide order dated 03.03.2020 in favour of petitioners and directed the respondent authorities to rectify the name of the petitioners in all revenue records. 10.4 That, any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sarguja Division, dated 03.03.2020, in respect of the cancellation of Patta, respondent No. 7 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, which was not maintainable. As per Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular, the revision would lie before the State Government and not before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue itself has passed various orders in which the parties were relegated to approach the State Government, stating that, as per the Revenue Book Circular, the revision was not maintainable before the Board of Revenue. However, in the present case, the Board of Revenue illegally entertained the revision and passed an order which is not in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 7 submits that since the revision had been entertained and the Board of Revenue had passed an order on merits, the argument advanced by the petitioner that the revision was not maintainable cannot be accepted. Once the revision had been entertained by the concerned Board of Revenue and an order had been passed on merits, it would be presumed that the order had been rightly passed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, particularly the provisions contained in Part IV of the Revenue Book Circular, wherein it has been specifically stated that against an order relating to the cancellation or grant of Patta passed by the concerned Commissioner, the aggrieved party has to approach the State Government under the relevant regional jurisdiction, the order 4 passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be said to be in accordance with law. The said order having been passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. 5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. However, in the interest of justice, respondent No. 7 is granted liberty to approach the State Government by filing an appropriate revision. The concerned authority shall consider the aspect of limitation, keeping in view the period consumed by respondent No. 7 in pursuing the revision before the Board of Revenue. 6. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saurabh