1 2026:CGHC:19237-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 259 of 2026 Ashwani Kumar Bandhe S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Bandhe Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Baroda, Post And P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil Arang, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Union of India Through Secretary Defense, New Delhi 2. Union of India Through Secretary, Supply And Rehabilitation Department New Delhi 3. Union of India Through Secretary Civil Aviation, New Delhi 4. Managing Director Airport Authority of India (AAI), Address - A.A.I. Building, Sufdarjang Airport, New Delhi 5. Director Vivekanand Airport, Civil Airport, Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 7. Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8. Sub Divisional Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue) Raipur 9. Nayab Tahsildar Mandir Hasaud, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.27 17:56:59 +0530 2 10. Nava Raipur Development Authority Through Managing Director, Nava Raipur Development Authority, Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 10 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5; Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State; and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 10. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the orders dated 23.11.2021 and 23.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4724 of 2021 and Review Petition No. 171 of 2021 (Ashwani Kumar Bandhe vs. Union of India & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein was disposed of and the review petition preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed WPC No. 4724/2021 before the learned Single Judge challenging the order dated 23.01.2021 passed by respondent No.9/Nayab Tahsildar, Mandir Hasaud, whereby the application for correction of name of the appellant in the revenue records was rejected. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that the lands bearing Kh. No. 200/3 admeasuring 14.81 acres, Kh. No. 201/2 admeasuring 4.16 acres, Kh. No. 208/2 admeasuring 8.51 acres and Kh. No. 295/2 admeasuring 6.85 acres, total area 34.33 acres, originally belonged to the ancestor of the appellant namely Guharam S/o Late Govind. During the period of the Second World War, the said lands were requisitioned and used for transit centre and refugee camp purposes and thereafter continued to be used as a base camp. He also submits that subsequently, the competent authorities including the Department of Work and Housing issued directions for release of the land and for payment of arrears of rent/compensation in respect of the requisitioned lands. The Chief Commandant of the concerned department also issued communications for fixation of rent and payment of compensation to the land owners and ultimately issued release orders restoring the land. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, Raipur directed the concerned revenue authorities to correct the name of the father of the appellant in the revenue records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that despite such clear directions and release orders, in the year 1987, while carrying out 4 correction in the revenue records, instead of recording the name of Mohan Lal, father of the appellant, the name of the State Government came to be recorded. It is further submitted that the father of the appellant, being an illiterate person and in possession of the land, had no knowledge of such incorrect mutation, and therefore, did not raise any objection at that stage. He further contended that in the year 2004, when the father of the appellant came to know about such incorrect recording, he filed WP No. 2928/2004, which was disposed of with a direction to consider his representation. Thereafter, WPC No. 380/2012 was also filed and disposed of with a similar direction; however, the authorities failed to act in accordance with the directions, compelling initiation of Contempt Case (Civil) No. 85/2013. 6. It is also contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that after the death of the father of the appellant in the year 2013, the appellant sought information under the Right to Information Act, wherein the Sub Divisional Officer categorically informed that no order exists on record for mutation of the land in favour of the State Government. Similarly, the Civil Aviation Department also informed that no record of acquisition of the said land is available. He further stated that despite absence of any acquisition proceedings or lawful title, the State Government, taking advantage of the incorrect revenue entries, transferred the land in favour of Nava Raipur Development Authority. Upon gaining knowledge of the same, the appellant raised objections and pursued remedies before the competent authorities. Thereafter, appellant filed an application on 27.02.2018 before the Nayab Tahsildar 5 for correction of revenue records. Upon such application, the Patwari submitted a report on 24.03.2018 clearly stating that the appellant is in possession of the land though the name of the State Government is recorded. Thereafter, the Nayab Tahsildar, Mandir Hasaud submitted a detailed report on 20.09.2018 to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), categorically holding that the appellant and his ancestors are the real owners of the land and that there is no document supporting mutation in favour of the State Government, and accordingly recommended correction of the revenue records. A similar report was again submitted on 18.11.2019 reiterating the same findings. 7. Learned counsel submits that despite such categorical findings by the competent revenue authorities, the application of the appellant was rejected, which led to filing of the writ petition. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.11.2021 disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 9 to conduct a fresh inquiry into the matter and pass a speaking order. Learned counsel submits that being aggrieved, the appellant filed Review Petition No. 171/2021 pointing out that the competent revenue authorities had already conducted a detailed inquiry and recorded findings in favour of the appellant, and therefore, direction for fresh inquiry was unwarranted and would result in multiplicity of proceedings. However, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.01.2026 dismissed the review petition holding that there is no error apparent on the face of record. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge 6 failed to appreciate that the issue had already been examined by the competent revenue authorities, who had categorically held that the appellant is the rightful owner and that there exists no document justifying mutation in favour of the State Government. It is submitted that directing a fresh inquiry in such circumstances is wholly unnecessary and contrary to the material on record. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider that the mutation in favour of the State Government was made without any acquisition proceedings, without payment of compensation and without any lawful authority, and therefore, such entry is ex facie illegal. 9. Learned counsel submits that the directions issued for fresh inquiry would open the door for repeated proceedings and cause serious prejudice to the appellant, who has already been litigating the matter for several years. It is further submitted that the rejection of the review petition is also erroneous, as the existence of prior inquiry and findings constituted an error apparent on the face of record which warranted interference. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the orders dated 23.11.2021 passed in WPC No. 4724/2021 and 23.01.2026 passed in Review Petition No. 171/2021 are illegal, improper and unsustainable in law, and the same deserve to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submits that the impugned orders have been passed 7 strictly in accordance with law and do not call for any interference. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, has not adjudicated the rights of the parties finally, but has only directed the competent authority to conduct a proper inquiry and pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity to all concerned. It is further submitted that such a direction is just, fair and in consonance with the principles of natural justice, particularly in a matter involving disputed questions of fact relating to title and revenue entries. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the appellant cannot claim any prejudice from the direction of fresh inquiry, inasmuch as he would be at liberty to place all relevant documents and materials before the competent authority. It is contended that the reports relied upon by the appellant are only recommendatory in nature and do not confer any vested right, and therefore, the competent authority is required to independently examine the matter. It is also submitted that the review petition has been rightly dismissed, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. From a perusal of the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, it is evident that the writ petition has been disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to conduct an inquiry into the matter and to pass a reasoned and speaking order after 8 affording due opportunity to the appellant. The said direction does not finally determine the rights of the parties, but only facilitates a proper adjudication by the statutory authority on the basis of relevant records. 15. In matters relating to correction of revenue entries, particularly where rival claims and historical transactions are involved, the competent revenue authority is the appropriate forum to examine factual aspects, scrutinize records and arrive at a conclusion. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly refrained from adjudicating disputed questions of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction and has instead relegated the parties to the competent authority. 16. The contention of the appellant that a fresh inquiry was not required cannot be accepted, as the reports relied upon by the appellant are not final adjudications but only part of the administrative process. The competent authority is required to consider the entire material, including past records, correspondence and claims of all stakeholders, before arriving at a lawful conclusion. The direction for fresh inquiry, therefore, cannot be said to be either redundant or prejudicial. 17. So far as the dismissal of Review Petition No. 171/2021 is concerned, it is well settled that review jurisdiction is limited and can be exercised only in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter. In the present case, no such error has been demonstrated. The grounds raised in the review petition were essentially a repetition of the arguments advanced in the writ petition, which have already been considered. The learned 9 Single Judge has, therefore, rightly dismissed the review petition. 18. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in intra-Court appeal. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge ensures a fair opportunity to the appellant and provides for a proper adjudication by the competent authority. 19. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The orders dated 23.11.2021 passed in WPC No. 4724/2021 and 23.01.2026 passed in Review Petition No. 171/2021 are affirmed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan