Digitally signed by ASHISH A TI S W H A IS R H I 1 TIWARI Date:

2026.01.09 +0530

2026:CGHC:491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1385 of 2014

1.Shri Kartik Ram (Died) Through Lrs as per Honble Court Order Dated 08-10-2024 1.1 - (A) Bharadwaj Behra S/o Late Laxmiprasad Behra, aged about 47 years R/o Rajpur, Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

1.2 - (B) Jitendra Kumar Behra S/o Late Laxmiprasad Behra, aged about 40 years R/o Kumpitiyapara, Rajpur, Lailunga, Distt. - Raigarh C.G.

... Petitioners versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G.

2.Chhattisgarh State Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Through Its President, Chhattisgarh State Anusuchit Janjati Ayog, 61 Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur C.G.

3.Shri Dilsai S/o Shri Dhobiram R/o Village Kurra, Tahsil Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh C.G.

... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Shruti Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, PL For Respondent No.2 : Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : None (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

Order on Board dated 05.01.2026 Challenge in this petition is to the order/memo dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. President of Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog in Case No. 544/2012-2013 directing reversion of lands of respondent No.3 under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “CGLRC”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed land in this case is Khasra No. 270/1, area 06 acres situate at village Kurra, Tehsil Lailunga, District Raigarh. She submits that respondent No.3 claimed that the disputed property was his ancestral property which was purchased by one Ramdhan son of Nanbudha Kanwar, resident of village Rajpur, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh by registered sale deed dated 15.02.1974 from one Dhobiram son of Sagu, resident of village Kuri, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. The original petitioner Kartik Prasad is said to have purchased the disputed land in auction, and prior to that Ramdhan had purchased the same from the father of complainant namely Pansai by a registered sale deed. After purchasing the said land, Ramdhan is said to have been in possession of that for two years. Subsequently, the said land vested in the State Government and consequent to auction carried out by the Tehsildar it was purchased by the original petitioner herein. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that later on proceedings under Section 170-B of the CGLRC were carried out before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda in Revenue Case No. 216-A/23/1988-

89 in which the order was passed in favour of the original petitioner Kartik Ram.

3. Said order of the Sub Divisional Officer was appealed before The Additional Collector, Raigarh in Appeal Case No. 2/A-23/2004-2005 which also came to be dismissed. Complainant respondent No.3 Revision Case No. 155-A-23/2008-09 before the Commissioner, Bilaspur which was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2010. Order dated 16.12.2010 passed in the revision was subjected to review in Review Case No. 2/A-23/2011-12 which came to be dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 20.07.2012.

4. Later on, respondent No. 3 made a complaint before respondent No.2 requesting to revert the disputed land. By the order impugned, respondent No. 2 directed the reversion of the disputed land in favour of respondent No.3 and also directed for correction in the revenue records. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 has already been settled by the revenue Courts, respondent No.2 has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the order impugned and thereby practically rendering the orders of the revenue courts as null and void. She submits that the power which is vested under Section 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Anusuchit Janjaati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 herein referred to an