PHOOLMAT vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010321432023 2026:CGHC:45784
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4268 of 2023
SHYNA
AJAY
1 - Phoolmat W/o Late Devsingh Sahu Aged About 83 Years R/o Village
Pataud, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date: 2026.11.02
17:54:20 +0530
2 - Sonaram S/o Late Devsingh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village
Pataud, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)
3 - Sunkumar S/o Late Devsingh Aged About 44 Years R/o Village
Pataud, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya,
Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through Its
President, Circuit Court Raipur (C.G.)
3 The Commissioner Bastar Division, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)
4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker, District North Baster
Kanker (C.G.)

2
5 Nayab Tahsildar Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
6 - Smt. Bindabai W/o Late Santuram, R/o Village Pataud, Tahsil
Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
7 - Kalidas S/o Late Santuram, R/o Village Pataud, Tahsil Kanker,
District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
For Respective
: Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate and Dr. Arham
Respondents
Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
29/10/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs :
10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call the entire record pertaining to case
of petitioner from kind perusal from the respondent
authorities.
10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court by issuing
appropriate writ set-aside the impugned order
dated 25.01.2022 passed by respondent no. 2
(Annexure P/1).
10.3) Any other relief or relief (s) which this Hon'ble
Court may think proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be
granted.

3
2. Brief facts of the case are that Late Devsingh Sahu, deceased
husband of petitioner No. 1, was the recorded legal titleholder of
land bearing Khasra Nos. 514 and 658/1 (admeasuring area 0.35
hectare and 1.50 hectares respectively), who instituted an
application under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 (in short “the Code”) before the Nayab Tahsildar,
Kanker, seeking restoration of possession over an extent of 0.18
hectare encroached upon by Respondent No. 6. Upon receipt of
the Demarcation Report and Panchnama , Respondent No. 5-
Nayab Tehsildar, Kanker, issued notice to Respondent No. 6, who
entered appearance and filed an objection pleading inter alia that,
owing to an inadvertent error in the revenue map, the property
belonging to Respondent No. 6 was erroneously recorded in the
name of late Devsingh Sahu. During the pendency of the case,
Devsingh Sahu died and the present petitioners were duly
substituted as his legal representatives and pursuant to the
memo dated 05.08.2015 (Annexure P/3), physical possession of
the subject land was restored to them by the Tahsildar. The First
Appeal and Second Appeal preferred by Respondents No. 6 & 7
against the said order were successively dismissed on the
threshold ground of limitation vide order dated 24.02.2016
(Annexure P/4) passed by Respondent No. 4 (Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) and
order dated 09.02.2018 (Annexure P/5) passed by the
Commissioner, Bastar Division (Respondent No. 3). Aggrieved by
these concurrent orders, Respondents No. 6 & 7 preferred a

4
Revision Petition before Respondent No. 2-Board of Revenue,
which vide impugned order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/1), set-
aside all lower revenue orders without remanding the matter to the
appellate authority for consideration of delay and improperly
directed the concerned Nayab Tahsildar to conduct a fresh inquiry
under Sections 89 and 250 of the Code. Hence, this Petition.
3. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Board of
Revenue is illegal and unsustainable in law. He submits that the
Board of Revenue erred in setting aside the concurrent orders
passed by the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer and Commissioner
and directly remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh
H
adjudication. e submits that since the power to conduct
proceedings under Section 89 of the Code is vested exclusively in
the Sub Divisional Officer, any order remanding the matter for
inquiry thereunder could have been directed to the Sub Divisional
Officer alone. The failure to do so vitiates the impugned order,
making it patently contrary to law and wholly destitute of statutory
authority.
4. Per contra, Dr. Arham Siddiqui, learned counsel for the
State/respondent submits that the impugned order has been
passed well within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. He
submits that the Board of Revenue, being the highest Revenue
Court, has passed a well-reasoned and detailed order after
considering the entire matrix of the case, which suffers from no
legal infirmity. Learned counsel further submits that since an

5
application under Section 250 of the Code falls squarely within the
statutory domain and jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, the Board of
Revenue committed no illegality in remanding the matter to the
concerned Tahsildar for fresh consideration. Hence, the impugned
order calls for no interference by this Court.
5. Likewise, Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for respondents 6 &
7 submits that the impugned order is in accordance with law. He
submits that while remanding the matter, the Board of Revenue
meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the case.
Learned counsel points out that the Board of Revenue specifically
observed that if, upon hearing the parties, it appears that the
application under Section 89 of the Code also requires
consideration, the competent authority may entertain the same
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Thus, the
order of remand does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition carefully.
7. Evidently, a well-reasoned order of remand has been passed by
the Board of Revenue after evaluating every material aspect of
the case in its correct perspective. The Board of Revenue
exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code
to rectify procedural anomalies and ensure complete justice
between the parties. It specifically directed that the competent
authority shall determine whether any house has been
constructed on the subject land, for which purpose a proper
inquiry is to be conducted in accordance with law after affording

6
due opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, prior to
adjudicating the application of the petitioners under Section 250
of the Code. It was further observed that if it transpires during the
course of the inquiry that proceedings under Section 89 of the
Code are warranted, the appropriate steps may be taken in
accordance with law.
8. Revisional Courts, exercising jurisdiction under Section 50 of the
Code, possess broad powers to set-aside threshold dismissals
(such as those based purely on limitation) when substantive
disputes regarding title or revenue map records require factual
determination. Since the primary cause of action originated from
an application under Section 250 of the Code, which falls under
the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, the direction to remand the matter
to the Tahsildar for exhaustive inquiry carries no jurisdictional
defect.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Board of
Revenue suffers from no legal, procedural or jurisdictional infirmity
and calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.
10.
Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay