ORDER : 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State of Chhattisgarh/Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Appeal No.A/14/R/B121/129/2008, whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 8.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in Revenue Case No.64/B-121/2007-08 and has directed for recording the names of Respondents No.2 to 4 as owners of the land in dispute after deleting the word “charagan” from the revenue record. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that Respondents No.2 to 4 moved an application before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur under Section 237 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth ‘the Revenue Code’) for changing the entries in the revenue record by deleting the word “charagan” therefrom. It was the case of Respondents No.2 to 4 that the father of Respondent No.2, namely, Suklal Sonkar, grandfather of Respondent No.3, namely, Halalu Sahu and grandfather of Respondent No.4, namely, Ramchandra were holding 1.125, 3.557 and 3.257 hectares of land bearing Khasra No.776, 777 and 877, respectively, at Village Bhatagaon, Tahsil and District Raipur. Ancestors of Respondents No.2 to 4 have died. After their death, being legal representatives, Respondents No.2 to 4 contacted the Halka Patwari on 5.12.2006 for recording of their names in the revenue record. They became aware that the word “charagan” has been entered into the revenue record. According to Respondents No.2 to 4, the land had never been recorded as “charagan” in the revenue record earlier. As such, the entry of the word “charagan” without their permission and without approval of the Gram Sabha is illegal. 3. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, by his order dated 8.10.2008, rejected the application moved by Respondents No.2 to 4. However, the appeal preferred by Respondents No.2 to 4 has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order Annexure P1. Hence, this petition has been filed by the State of Chhattisgarh/Petitioner. 4. 3. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, by his order dated 8.10.2008, rejected the application moved by Respondents No.2 to 4. However, the appeal preferred by Respondents No.2 to 4 has been allowed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order Annexure P1. Hence, this petition has been filed by the State of Chhattisgarh/Petitioner. 4. Referring to the proceedings drawn by the Consolidation Officer, Raipur under the provisions of the Central Provinces Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1928 (henceforth ‘the Act’), Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Petitioner submitted that the land was recorded as “charagan” as a result of the consolidation proceedings drawn for the Village Bhatagaon and as such the said proceedings have become final and binding on all the land holders of the village. Respondents No.2 to 4 have filed the application mala fidely. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue has passed its order only on the presumptions, which is not permissible in law. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that the Board of Revenue has also failed to appreciate that the application under Section 237 of the Revenue Code should not have been filed before the Commissioner, Raipur Division for correction of record of rights. The Board of Revenue has also failed to appreciate that if any application ought to have been filed by Respondents No.2 to 4 that should have been filed before the Tahsildar for correction of record of rights. Therefore also, the impugned order Annexure P1 passed by the Board of Revenue is not sustainable. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue has erred in law as well as in fact in holding that the land in dispute was recorded as “shamilat charagan” due to clerical error. 5. Opposing the above arguments raised by Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Petitioner, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.2 to 4 argued that the consolidation scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer and approved by the District Collector was on the basis of applications submitted by 39 holders as is evident from the scheme itself. The report attached to the consolidation scheme only says that the permanent holders, by mutual agreement among themselves, have set apart total land of 67.91 acres for “shamilat gochar”. This report and the scheme do not reveal khasra numbers comprising the said area of 67.91 acres. The report attached to the consolidation scheme only says that the permanent holders, by mutual agreement among themselves, have set apart total land of 67.91 acres for “shamilat gochar”. This report and the scheme do not reveal khasra numbers comprising the said area of 67.91 acres. It does not reveal whether the land owned by Respondents No.2 to 4 was included in the said land of 67.91 acres or not. If the land owned by them was included in the land reserved for cattle grazing land, there ought to have been allotment of government land in lieu thereof to Respondents No.2 to 4. Allotment of alternative land is a sine qua non for reserving private land for community purpose like cattle grazing. The State/Petitioner did not produce any record of such allotment in support of its contention before the Court below or before this Court. Further referring to the chakbandi misal for the year 1941-42, Learned Counsel submitted that it shows that the land belonged to the ancestors of Respondents No.2 to 4. Further referring to Annexure R1, Learned Counsel submitted that the survey of land bandobast record of 1929-30 and 1955 clearly shows that the land owned by Respondents No.2 to 4 was not recorded as “charagan”. Further referring to the letter dated 2.9.2008 of the District Collector, Raipur, the letter dated 25.7.2008 of the Tahsildar and the letter dated 18.7.2008 of the Patwari, Bhatagaon, Learned Counsel submitted that there was no approval obtained from the District Collector for changing nature of the land as “charagan” from that of “bhumiswami”. Therefore, it is crystal clear that in the year 1992-93, the land shown to be “charagan” is clearly a clerical error. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Board of Revenue is in accordance with the material available before the Board. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is a well-reasoned order and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. With regard to the argument relating to submission of application for correction of record before the Tahsildar, it was argued by the Learned Counsel that the State/Petitioner did not take this ground before the Commissioner or before the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to take this ground before this Court at this stage. The Petitioner should waive its right to raise the said ground. 6. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to take this ground before this Court at this stage. The Petitioner should waive its right to raise the said ground. 6. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record and also gone through the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division with due care. 7. I have perused the consolidation proceedings drawn by the Consolidation Officer under the provisions of the Act, i.e., Annexure P2. The order-sheet of the said proceedings records that on 3.2.1938, 39 permanent holders of mauja Bhatagaon moved an application for consolidation of their agricultural holdings. The Consolidation Officer registered the case, drew the proceedings, prepared a report of consolidation for the year 1941 and thereafter issued proclamation as required under the rules framed under Section 29 of the Act. The report of the Consolidation Officer, Raipur is available at page 18 of the instant writ petition. From perusal of the provisions of Sections 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the Act, it is apparent that when the holding of any permanent holder is burdened with a encumbrance, he shall cease to have any right in or against the land from which the encumbrance has been transferred. Meaning thereby is that when the word “charagan” is mentioned in the revenue record as a result of confirmation of the consolidation, such encumbrance is binding on the holders of the land. The order confirming the scheme of consolidation is not appeal-able and no Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit against any consolidation. 8. From perusal of Annexure P2, i.e., copies of the consolidation proceedings drawn by the Consolidation Officer under the provisions of the Act, it reveals that total 39 permanent holders of mauja Bhatagaon had moved an application for consolidation of their agricultural holdings. Total 67.91 acres of land was consolidated for community purpose, i.e., “shamilat gochar”. The report and the consolidation scheme do not reveal the khasra numbers comprising the said area of 67.91 acres. It also does not reveal that the land owned by Respondents No.2 to 4 was included in 67.91 acres. Names of the 39 permanent holders of mauja Bhatagaon, who had moved the aforesaid application were not mentioned in the report. The report and the consolidation scheme do not reveal the khasra numbers comprising the said area of 67.91 acres. It also does not reveal that the land owned by Respondents No.2 to 4 was included in 67.91 acres. Names of the 39 permanent holders of mauja Bhatagaon, who had moved the aforesaid application were not mentioned in the report. Against the consolidation of the land of Respondents No.2 to 4, they were given any land, no material was produced before the Court below or before this Court by the State/Petitioner. There is nothing on record that any entry was done in the revenue record that the above land of Respondents No.2 to 4 was recorded as “charagan” after approval of the consolidation scheme. For the first time, in the khasra panchshala of 1988-89 and B1 for the year 1992-93 the land was recorded as “charagan”. On what basis and on whose orders, this entry was made, no document or material has been produced by the State/Petitioner before the Court below or before this Court. Rather, the letter dated 2.9.2008 of the District Collector, Raipur, the letter dated 25.7.2008 of the Tahsildar and the letter dated 18.7.2008 of the Patwari Bhatagaon clearly show that no permission or approval was obtained from the District Collector or from any other authority for changing the nature of the land as “charagan” from that of “bhumiswami”. Furthermore, from the material available on record, it is also established that Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 and their ancestors were in possession of the land in dispute and now, after the death of Respondents No.2, 3 and 4, their legal representatives are in possession of the land in dispute. Looking to the entire material available and as discussed above, in my considered view, Respondent No.1/Board of Revenue has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the entry of the land in dispute as “charagan” in the revenue record is a clerical error only. The impugned order Annexure P1 passed by the Board of Revenue is a well-reasoned order and it cannot be said that it has been passed on presumptions only. 9. The impugned order Annexure P1 passed by the Board of Revenue is a well-reasoned order and it cannot be said that it has been passed on presumptions only. 9. With regard to filing of the application under Section 237 of the Revenue Code before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur for correction in the revenue record, true that the application has not been preferred before the Tahsildar or the Collector, but the Petitioner/State did not take this ground before the Commissioner, Raipur Division or before the Board of Revenue. Therefore, after passage of a long period of 14 years, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the Petitioner/State to raise this ground at this stage. Otherwise also, the Board of Revenue, being an appellate authority, has every powers to direct the lower authority for correction of the revenue records. 10. As discussed above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P1) is affirmed.