##PAGE1##

1

VISHAKHA

BEOHAR

NAFR

Digitally signed

by VISHAKHA

BEOHAR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 2861 of 2022

1 - Aashiya Begam W/o Late Enayam Husain Aged About 64 Years R/o

Near Post Office Belpahad, District Jharsugada (Odisa)

2 - Ahmad Raj Husain S/o Late Enayam Husain Aged About 42 Years

R/o Near Post Office Belpahad, District Jharsugada (Odisa)

3 - Aktar Raza Husain S/o Late Enayam Husain Aged About 40 Years

R/o Near Post Office Belpahad, District Jharsugada (Odisa)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Sandeep Benarjee S/o Late Shivkumar Benarjee, Aged About 45

Years R/o Village - Jagatpur Near Karmel School, Tahsil And District -

Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Revenue Board Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

3 - The Add. Commessioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh.

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District Raigarh

Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

2

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Ahmad Raj Hussain, Petitioner No. 2 is present.

For State :- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G.

For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

12.05.2026

1. The present petition is against the order dated 05.05.2022 passed

by the learned President, Chhattisgarh Revenue Board Bilaspur

Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the learned

Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision petition filed by the

petitioner/applicant and affirmed the order dated 12.01.2022

passed by the learned Commissioner, Bilaspur and order dated

31.10.1986 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer

(Revenue) Raigarh (C.G.), holding that the appeal has been

preferred before SDO(R) after 48 years of delay.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the land bearing Khasra No.

249/1, area 0.35 acre, situated at Village Laxmipur, Jagatpur,

Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), was originally recorded in the

name of Rahat Hussain S/o Afzal Hussain, who was the

grandfather of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, in the revenue records.

According to the petitioners, the said disputed land was never sold

or transferred by the grandfather of the petitioners in favour of any

person. It is the case of the petitioners that the ancestor of

respondent No. 1, namely S.C. Banerjee, through his predecessor

3

Chapla Bala Banerjee, got the disputed land mutated in his favour

on the basis of an alleged fake and fabricated sale deed dated

07.07.1944 purportedly executed by one Arjun Singh, though the

said Arjun Singh never had any right, title or interest over the

aforesaid land. On the basis of the said sale deed, the Assistant

Superintendent of Land Records, Raigarh passed an order dated

16.05.1972 directing mutation in Entry Register No. 115. Being

aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.05.1972, the

predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners preferred an appeal

before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh along with an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of

delay. However, the said appeal came to be dismissed on

31.10.1986 on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, the petitioners

preferred a further appeal before the learned Additional

Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur along with an

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but the learned

Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal vide order dated

12.01.2022 on the ground of limitation. Against the said order, the

petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board of

Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.), however, the learned Board of Revenue

also dismissed the revision vide order dated 05.05.2022 on the

ground of limitation. According to the petitioners, the impugned

orders passed by the revenue authorities are illegal, arbitrary,

contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code

and opposed to the settled