Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Meena Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:47950
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4972 of 2025
1 - Smt. Meena Tiwari W/o Late Satyanarayan, agged about 64 years, R/o
Karan Nagar, Changorabhatha, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.).
Digitally signed
by RAVVA
UTTEJ KUMAR
RAJU
2 - Sourabh Tiwari S/o Late Satyanarayan aged about 41 years, R/o Karan
Nagar, Changorabhatha, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.).
3 - Gaurav Tiwari S/o Late Satyanarayan, aged about 39 years, R/o Karan
Nagar, Changorabhatha, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.).
4 - Awdhesh Narayan Tiwari S/o Late Jhumuklal Tiwari, aged about 68 years,
R/o Mohalla Kududand Bilaspur, Tashil & District- Bilaspur C.G. At Present
R/o 27 Kholi Indrasen Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur C.G. (wrongly
mentioned as Awdhesh Tiwari in the impugned order).
5 - Mahesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Jhumuklal Tiwari, aged about 64 years,
R/o Mohalla Milan Chowk Kududand Bilaspur, Tashil & District- Bilaspur
(C.G.).
6 - Uttra Tiwari D/o Jhumuklal Tiwari, aged about 78 years, R/o Mohalla
Kududand Bilaspur, Tashil & District- Bilaspur C.G. At Present R/o- Near
Sitaram Mandir Gondpara Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur C.G. (wrongly
mentioned as Uttrai in the impugned order).
7 - Smt. Savita Tiwari W/o Late Jainarayan Tiwari, aged about 65 years, R/o
2
Near Sahu Kirana Stores, Ashadeep School, Village Changorabhatha, Karan
Nagar,raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.).
8 - Alok Tiwari S/o Late Jainarayan Tiwari, aged about 39 years, R/o Near
Sahu Kirana Stores, Ashadeep School, Village Changorabhatha, Karan
Nagar,raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.).
9 - Himanshu Tiwari S/o Late Jainarayan Tiwari, aged about 32 years, R/o
Near Sahu Kirana Stores, Ashadeep School, Village Changorabhatha, Karan
Nagar,raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.)
(Kamla Tiwari died leaving behind the aforesaid legal representatives
i.e. petitioner no. 1 to 9 & respondent no. 8)
... Petitioners
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.).
3 - Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.).
5 - Rajendra Tiwari S/o Late Atmaram, aged about 65 years, S/o Late
Atmaram, R/o Police Line Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.).
6 - Omprakash S/o Late Atmaram, aged about 61 years, R/o Village Pipariya,
Tahsil- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.).
7 - Kishor Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Atmaram, aged about 59 years, R/o Village
Dabo, Tahsil- Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G)., At Present R/o Near Police
Station Balaghat, Tahsil & District Balaghat (M.P.).
8 - Rajendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Jhumuk Lal Tiwari, aged about 61 years, R/o-
Mohalla Milan Chowk Kududand Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
18/09/2025
1. Heard on maintainability of the petition.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent/State contended that the
Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction passed
the order under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 and in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench
of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 560 of 2022, judgment delivered on
24.07.2023, the order of Board of Revenue in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction only and only the writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable.
3. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
the order of Board of Revenue is challenged before this Court
either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India
and both are maintainable in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
4. The prayers and content of the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, thereunder being once requiring exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction only and could be treated as petition filed
only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view of
the matter, against the order of Board of Revenue in exercise of its
revisional jurisdiction only and only a writ petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India would be maintainable.
5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner
against the order of Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction is not maintainable, as such it is dismissed at this
stage only on the ground of maintainability, however with liberty to
file fresh petition in accordance with Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
6. The certified copy of the relevant documents be returned to the
learned counsel for the petitioners after furnishing the photocopy of
the same.
7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with the aforesaid
liberty.
Sd/- SD/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
U.K. Raju
