Abhishek Kumar S/o Johan Singh Kanwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Belpat v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management De- partment
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2536 of 2025 Abhishek Kumar S/o Johan Singh Kanwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Belpat, Tahsil - Pendraroad, District - Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management De- partment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2-The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3-The Upper Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4-The Collector District - Gourela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pendraroad, District- Gourela-Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) 6-The Tahsildar Pendraroad, District- Gourela-Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) 7 - Upendra Rai S/o Shivshankar Rai R/o Village - Kirari, Post -Amarpur, Tahsil - Pendra, (C.G.) Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi District- 8 - Chandranikesh Paikra S/o Gulab Singh R/o Village - Basantpur Tahsil - Pendraroad, (C.G.) Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi District- 9 - Jaypal S/o Komad Singh R/o Village - Kirari, Post - Amarpur, Tahsil- Pendra, District- (C.G.) Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi 10 - Guddi @ Ramvati D/o Patiram R/o Beljhariya, Tahsil-Marwahi, District- Gourela- (C.G.) Pendra-Marwahi 11 - Bechuram S/o Munna @ Ramsingh R/o Pakariya, Tahsil - Pendraroad,district- (C.G.) Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi 12 - Sumitra Bai @ Sunita D/o Munna @ Ram Singh R/o Village - Nawagaon, Tahsil Bel- (C.G.) - gahna, Bilaspur District 13- Jankunwar @ Dulariya D/o Banshi R/o Pakariya, Tahsil-Pendraroad, District- Gourela- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondents 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Because it is well settled law that the dispute regarding the title of the property shall be discussed and determined by the concerned Civil Court only. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition stands
Arguments
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mrs. Poorva Tiwari, Panel lawyer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10.06.2025 1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs: (a) that, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioner. (b) that , this court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P/1). (c) that, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 3. The subject matter in brief is such that, the land bearing khasra no. 38/2 admeasuring area 0.3620 hectare situated at Village Sarkhor, Tahsil-Pendra, District-Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) was given in the share of respondent no. 10 to 13 & Bechu Singh son of Munna @ Ramsingh in family partition between the respondents no. 10 to 13. On account of need of money, the respondents no. 10 to 13 have sold the piece of land bearing khasra no. 38/2 admeasuring area 0.45 acre (0.1810 hectare) in favour of petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 07.09.2022 and accordingly the said land has been mutated in the name of petitioner as khasra no. 38/3 vide online mutation order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Tahsildar (respondent no. 6). 4. The respondent no. 9 filed an appeal before the respondent no. 5 3 challenging the online mutation order dated 19.09.2022 and without considering the records of case, vide order dated 13.04.2023 the respondent no. 5 has allowed the appeal and set- aside the mutation order dated 19.09.2022. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2023 the respondent no. 8 preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 3 bearing Appeal No. 368/A- 6/2022-23 and vide order dated 04.01.2024 the respondent no. 3 has allowed the appeal and set-aside the order dated 13.04.2023. 5. On 11.05.2023 the respondents no. 10 to 13 have again sold out the subject land bearing khasra no. 38/2 (now khasra no. 38/3) admeasuring area 0.45 acre (0.1810 hectare) in favour of respondent no. 7. Thereafter the respondent no. 7 filed a revision before the respondent no. 2 against the order dated 04.01.2024 and vide impugned order dated 20.02.2025 the respondent no. 2 has set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and Additional Commissioner and maintained the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 and further directed to mutate the subject land bearing khasra no. 38/2 (now 38/3) in the name of original owners i.e. respondents no. 10 to 13 and further directed the parties to approach the competent court for declaring the validity of their sale deeds. The respondent no. 2 has further observed that the said order shall be also applicable in another similar case bearing Case No. RN/28/R/A-6/60/2024. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 is bad in law, perverse and erroneous and 4 is liable to be set aside or quashed. As on 11.05.2023 the respondents no. 10 to 13 have again sold out the subject land bearing Khasra No. 38/2 admeasuring areas 0.45 acres in favor of respondent no. 7, though at that time respondents no. 10 to 13 were not the owner of the subject land, therefore, the said sale deed is null and void and no such right or title can be accrued in favor of respondent no. 7 on the basis of said invalid sale deed. Respondent no. 7 has no locus to challenge the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 as the respondent no. 7 was not the party in appeal proceedings filed before the respondent no. 3. He also contended that the respondent no. 2 has committed grave error of law in setting aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and Additional Commissioner and maintained the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 5 and further directing to mutate the subject land bearing khasra no. 38/2 in the name of original owner that is respondent no. 10 to 13 and directed to approach the competent court for declaring the validity of their sale deeds. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that he petitioner is not having any locus. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the present case is a dispute by and between the parties with regard to the land bearing Khasra No.38/2 .Learned counsel 7. 8. 9. 5 for the petitioner stated that the respondent no. 7 has tried to sale the disputed land and he has filed an application before the Tahsildar for permission of the sale of the said land. He also stated that petitioner is the owner of the said land. But on bare perusal of the records it is crystal clear that this is a titled dispute by and between the parties over the said land, therefore, if the petitioner wishes to challenge the same and to get the order in his favor on the basis of any sale deed etc, he may approach before the concerned Civil Court raising all his grievances.
Decision
disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) alfiza Judge