1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1846 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Ramswarup Kashyap Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Negurdeeh, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - The Eleven Star Cricket Samiti, Negurdeeh, Through The President, Eleven Star Cricket Samiti, Negurdeeh, Ward No. 3, Kankaleen Mandir Para, Negurdeeh, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - The Treasurer, Eleven Star Cricket Samiti, Negurdeeh, Ward No. 3, Kankaleen Mandir Para, Negurdeeh, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State :- Ms.Upasana Mehta, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 07.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the learned courts below. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned eviction order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Shivrinarayan, Distt- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Revenuе Case No. 202503065300014/A-68/2024-25. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Shivrinarayan, janjgir- Champa (C.G.) not to take any action in compliance of the order dated 01.04.2025, till the final disposal of the Civil Suit No. 29-A/2023 pending before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Navagarh, Distt- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 10.4 That, any other relief in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner is owner of the land Rakba 0.03 Acers out of Khasra no. 644/1A, which is situated at 3 P.H. No. 12, R.N. Misda, Tahsil- Shivrinarayan, Distt- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). The petitioner was an encroacher of the said land since long time, that in the year of 2012 due to application made by petitioner for granting PATTA, the revenue case was registered and after due verification on 12.06.2012 the respondent No. 4 granted PATTA in the name of petitioner of the said land and thereafter, the petitioner is residing in the said land as an owner and has constructed the house and shop in the said land and running a business in his shop. On the basis of PATTA, the petitioner also obtaining electric connection in his house and shop and without any complaint petitioner and his family are residing in the said land as an owner. In the year of 2023, due to mala-fide intention the respondents No. 5 & 6 who are President, Treasurer of Eleven Cricket Samiti made a false complaint against the petitioner before the respondent No. 4 by stating that, without any authority of law the petitioner and his family are encroached the government land and residing in the same and also constructing the house and shop in the said land, which is secured for the purpose of play ground and prayed to vacate the petitioner from the said government land. In the said complaint the respondent No. 4, without giving any notice to the petitioner who was necessary party, passed the order and granted stay of the construction of the petitioner's land. After receiving the said stay order, the petitioner inquired the matter and has filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the basis of PATTA 4 which has obtained from the respondent No. 4. In the said suit, the petitioner has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. for grant of injunction till final disposal of suit. During the pendency of the said suit in the year 2025, the respondent No. 5 & 6 again filed an application/complaint before the respondent No. 4 by stating that the petitioner encroached the government land without any authority of law as the said land is secured for the purpose of playground. The respondents No. 5 and 6 have filed the said application after knowledge that, a civil suit has also been pending for the same cause of action before the concerned trial court as in the said civil suit they are necessary party and appeared before the learned trial court through their counsel. In the said application the respondent No. 4, after having knowledge that, the civil suit is pending for same disputed land orally directed the petitioner to appear before him and to file the reply to the application filed by the respondents No. 5 and 6. After receiving the reply, the respondent No. 4 directed concerned Patwari to enquire the matter and prepare the Pachnama and to submit the report and after submission of report by the concerned patwari. On 01.04.2025, the respondent No. 4 passed the order and directed the petitioner to vacate from the said land within a period of 7 days from today, whereas the civil suit and application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 is pending before the concerned trial court, which is clear violation of principal of natural justice. 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a notice for eviction dated 01.04.2025 has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4/Tahsildar under Section 248 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘The Code’) for the land bearing land Khasra No. 644/1A admeasuring Rakba 0.03 Acres, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment made by him within 7 days from 01.04.2025. He submits that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent authorities i.e. Collector Janjgir District Janjgir Champa and Tehsildar as well as other persons and application for injunction has already been moved, however, till date it has not been decided. He submits that complaints are being made by some of the neighbors who are having grudge against the petitioner, as such, vide order dated 04.09.2023, the patta granted to the petitioner has been canceled. Thereafter, the petitioner has has filed a civil suit dated 23.06.2023 for declaration of title and permanent injunction and again proceeding for eviction was initiated. He has filed an application dated 03.03.2025 apprising the Nayab Tehsildar for which he has filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction which is pending for consideration and in the said suit he has filed a patta which has been granted to him. He submits that since the matter has been seized by the concerned civil Court, as such, the Tehsildar is not having any power and authority to initiate the proceeding under Section 248 of the Code. 6 He further submits that the Tehsildar has passed an order dated 01.04.2025 even after knowing the fact that civil suit has already been filed and the said fact has been informed to the Tehsildar, as such, the entire proceeding initiated by the Tehsildar under Section 248 of the Code is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the said submission and submits that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the land in question and earlier the patta was canceled by the Collector District Janjgir Champa, as such, the petitioner is not having any authority to retain the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions advanced by the parties, it is settled proposition of law that once the Civil Jurisdictional Court is seized of the matter, the revenue Courts/Tahsildar have no power to pass any order in respect of the property in question. 7. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Nagjiram vs. Mangilal and Others reported in AIR 1977 MP 8 has held that once the Civil Jurisdictional Court is seized of the matter, the Tahsildar cannot pass any order in respect of the property in question. Relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- 7 “16. Since the entire case has been referred to us, applying the above principles, we quash the order of the Board of Revenue and the other Revenue authorities and direct that the case shall go back to the Naib-Tahsildar to proceed with Mangilal's application in the light of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs. The amount of security deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. 17. Before we leave this case we desire to say that as argued by Shri Chandmal Mehta a great hardship is likely to result to a bona fide applicant, who has a just claim for partition and who is entered in the revenue records as a Bhumiswami, if the proviso to Section 178 stands as it is. We quite see that every clever defendant, who may be in possession of the entire holding, would just raise any flimsy or frivolous dispute as to the applicant's title, thereby to defeat or delay the partition proceedings. It will not he a reasonable law that the applicant should be pushed to the Civil Court to seek a declaration of his title or to get his share determined even when the entries in the Revenue record fully support his case, nor will it be a just law that the Tahsildar should enter into any inquiry or record a finding to the effect in whose favour there is a prima facie case, and determine which of the parties should approach the Civil Court for a declaration of title. The Tahsildar should not be required to enter into a controversy regarding title which may involve the application of the mind in the light of various civil 8 enactments. Having regard to the sanctity of the revenue record the Tahsildar would have, but for the proviso, ordinarily proceeded to make the partition according to the revenue record, and the party who would be adversely affected if the partition were made according to the revenue record, would have gone to the Civil Court. Therefore, we think that a course just and fair to all concerned would have been this : As soon as a question of title is raised, the Tahsildar should make an order staying the proceedings before him. If no civil suit is instituted within a certain specified time from the date of the stay order, the Tahsildar should proceed to make the partition in accordance with the entries in the revenue records. This, however, we cannot say by way of interpretation of the section. We have our own limitations. The Court must not arrogate to itself the functions of the Legislature. Our function is merely to interpret the law according to the principles of interpretation of statutes and to enforce the law as it is. The Legislature can in no time redress the visible hardship by a simple amendment. “ 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Abid and Others v. Ravi Naresh and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2416 has held as under: "4. It is, however, an admitted fact that the petitioners have already filed a suit for injunction in which ex-parte ad-interim injunction has been granted by the Civil Court, Faizabad, Uttar 9 Pradesh on 05.12.2020. Once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, it goes without saying that the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to an end. The inter-se rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court." 9. Reverting back to the present case, since the matter is seized by the concerned civil jurisdictional Court, as such, the Tehsildar is having no power and jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 248 of the Code. Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.04.2025 is of no consequence and is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to pursue his matter before the concerned civil Court and till the decision of the application for grant of declaration of title and permanent injunction, the respondent authorities are restrained from removing the possession of the petitioner. 10. It is made clear that no unlimited time is given to the petitioner to pursue his application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC which has been filed before the civil Court and he is directed to pursue the said application within some expeditious time. 11. With this observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha