Chhattisgarh HC Leaves Widow And Sons’ Land-Restoration Order Set Aside Pending Fresh Inquiry Into Revenue-Map Dispute

Late Devsingh Sahu, whose legal representatives are the petitioners, applied under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“the Code”) for restoration of possession over 0.18 hectare allegedly encroached upon by respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

The Nayab Tahsildar restored possession to the petitioners. Appeals by respondents 6 and 7 were dismissed as time-barred by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner.

In revision, the Board of Revenue set aside the revenue orders and directed the Nayab Tahsildar to conduct a fresh inquiry, including consideration of whether proceedings under Section 89 were warranted.

The petitioners challenged that remand order, arguing that only the Sub-Divisional Officer could conduct proceedings under Section 89

Section 50 of the Code empowers the Board of Revenue, in revisional jurisdiction, to set aside orders and address procedural irregularities; the Court described that jurisdiction as broad enough to interfere with dismissals on threshold grounds where the underlying dispute requires factual determination.

Section 250 proceedings fall within the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, while any action under Section 89 must be taken by the appropriate competent authority in accordance with law.

The High Court may decline interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution where the impugned order discloses no legal, procedural, or jurisdictional infirmity.

The Court considered the Board’s remand reasoned and directed at resolving factual questions, including whether a house had been constructed on the land, before adjudicating the Section 250 application.

Since that application was within the Tahsildar’s jurisdiction, remanding it to the Tahsildar did not create a jurisdictional defect.

The Board’s observation concerning Section 89 required only that appropriate steps be taken by the competent authority if the inquiry showed they were warranted; it did not invalidate the remand.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any interim order was vacated.