Chhattisgarh High Court
REVP/260/2026 of RAM ASHRE SINGH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 22 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 260 of 2026 1 - Ram Ashre Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Dayal Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Badhiyatola, Ward No. 6, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The
CGHC010332252026
2026:CGHC:41303
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 260 of 2026
1 - Ram Ashre Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Dayal Singh Aged About 48
Years R/o Badhiyatola, Ward No. 6, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)
The Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg (C.G.)
3 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
5 - The Tahsildar, Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
6 - The Revenue Inspector, R.I. Circle - Chouthna, Tahsil - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
7 - The Patwari, P.H. No. 26, R.I. Circle - Chouthna, Tahsil - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon
(C.G.)
8 - Divisional Forest Officer, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest), Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “It is, therefore prayed before this Hon'ble court pleased to allow this review petition and modify the order dated 01.07.2026 as prayed in the petition, in the interest of justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present review petition has been filed seeking correction/modification of the order dated 01.07.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 3274 of 2026. He submits that, due to an inadvertent typographical error, the relief clause mentioned in paragraph 1 of the said order has been incorrectly typed. He further submits that the error is purely typographical and inadvertent in nature and that the relief clause in the order does not correctly reflect the relief actually sought by the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the aforesaid typographical error may kindly be corrected and the relief clause in paragraph 1 of the order dated 01.07.2026 may be suitably modified so as to correctly reflect the relief sought by the petitioner.
3. No objection has been raised from other side to the modification sought for.
4. Accordingly, the order dated 01.07.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3274 of 2026 is modified to the extent that the relief clause mentioned in paragraph 1 of the said order shall be read as under:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner’s case for its kind perusal.
10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the concerned respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to move freely and to permit him to enter his land through the pathway.
10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, which is still pending before them.
10.4. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief in favour of the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
5. Accordingly, the REVP stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
6. It is directed that this order be read along with order dated 01.07.2026 passed in WPC No. 3274/2026. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat