Basant Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The grievance of the petitioner seems to be the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 13.12.2021 whereby the Additional Collector on an application preferred by the respondent No.8 has remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar for division of land (Batankan).

The contention of the petitioner is that the application filed by the respondent No.8 was not infact for Batankan or division of land, but was only for demarcation of his land. Thus, the Additional Collector/SDO has exceeded his jurisdiction while deciding the said application. The said order was put to challenge before the Commissioner Raipur Division which also stood rejected vide order dated 17.05.2022. Immediately thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue on 23.05.2022. However, till date there has been no substantial progress in the revision petition.

The grievance of the petitioner now is that the respondent No.8 is using his political clout and influences, in getting the order of the Additional Collector dated 13.12.2021, Annexure P/3, executed thereby the revision of the petitioner before the Board of Revenue would become redundant or infructuous. Further grievance of the petitioner is that since the Board of Revenue is yet to take a decision on his IA i.e. an application for grant of interim relief or the revision itself on its own merits, the Additional Collector through the Tehsildar at this juncture should not take steps in frustrating the revision petition before the Board of Revenue.

The counsel for the State submits that as of now the Board of Revenue has become functional again and the petitioner can move an appropriate application for an urgent hearing and get the matter taken up for consideration of his interim application. The State counsel further submits that they have been informed that there is a sitting of the Board of Revenue tomorrow also i.e. on 05.04.2023.

All said and done, if the Board of Revenue for some reasons was not functional and the revision petition pending before the Board of Revenue were lying undated or have been granted long adjournment, the parties should not be rendered remedyless so far as their grievance is concerned. Secondly the parties cannot be put at a situation where their proceedings before the Board of Revenue becomes redundant or infructuous, by efflux of time if the orders of the authorities under challenge before the Board of Revenue is acted upon unless their interim application stands decided by the Board of Revenue.

In view of the same, this court is of the opinion that as of now the writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the concerned Board of Revenue either tomorrow when the sitting is there or within a period of 10 days with an application for urgent hearing in the revision petition No. RN/14/R/A-12/107/2022. The Board of Revenue, in turn, may consider and decide the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law at the earliest within a further period of 15 days.

Meanwhile, the respondents No.6&7 are restrained from initiating any co-ercive steps against the petitioner so far as implementing the order of the Additional Collector dated 13.12.2021 till an order is passed on the interim application filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid revision case number pending before the Board of Revenue.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Certified copy today.