In matters involving disputed revenue entries and title, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction should relegate parties to the competent revenue authority for a factual inquiry rather than adjudicating disputed facts itself.

NAFR

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.27 17:56:59 +0530

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

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. 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 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,