1 2025:CGHC:21527 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2086 of 2025 1 - Sheikh Salim S/o Late Sheikh Sahid Aged About 41 Years R/o Pandit Dindayal Upadhayay Ward Tahsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Sheikh Alim S/o Late Sheikh Sahid Aged About 39 Years R/o Pandit Dindayal Upadhayay Ward Tahsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Sheikh Sakil S/o Late Sheikh Sahid Aged About 35 Years R/o Pandit Dindayal Upadhayay Ward Tahsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Tahsildar Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - SDO (R) Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Munira Begum S/o Late Sheikh Sahid Aged About 43 Years R/o Daupara Pandit Dindayal Upadhayay Ward Tahsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.) 6 - Baitun Nisha D/o Late Sheikh Sahid W/o Abdul Hamid Aged About 59 Years R/o Fatima Bi Arzigul Chawl Quresh Nagar Haji Karamat Ali Road Near Vivek English School Kurla East Mumbai Maharashtra YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.13 17:59:45 +0530 2 7 - Parveen Nisha D/o Late Sheikh Sahid W/o Abdul Jamil Aged About 52 Years R/o Khadavali Thane Maharashtra 8 - Baby Shahana D/o Late Shiekh Sahid W/o Nasim Ahmed Aged About 44 Years R/o Dulhani Gali Guru Ghasidas Ward Jagdalpur Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Diwan and Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocates For State/respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Diwan and Mr. Vikhyat Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioners have filed the petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 It is therefore prayed that, This Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to issue a writ/order/directions to stay the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Mungeli under section 178 of the CGLRC 1959 in Revenue Case No. 202503250200018/A-27/2024-25, 202503250200019/A-27/2024-25, with 3 respect to the suit property in schedule A, B & C of the plaint, during the pendency of the application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the Civil Judge Class II, Mungeli in Civil Suit No. 148A/2024, in the interest of justice. 10.2 To direct the Commissioner Bilaspur, to decide the pending stay application under section 52 of the CGLRC with respect to the suit property. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are the petitioners have filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.148-A/2024 dated 21.11.2024 against respondents No. 5 for declaration and permanent injunction as well as in alternate partition and separate possession of the suit property, mentioned in Schedule A, B & C of the plaint on the ground that the father of the petitioners have executed a will dated 10.08.2020, which is pending before the learned trial Court. The petitioners have also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the learned trial Court, which is also pending consideration. On 26.03.2025, respondent no.5 submitted its written statement along with reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC and on 22.01.2025, respondent No.5 moved an application for partition of holdings before the Tehsildar, Mungeli with respect to the property situated at Village 4 Devri and Mungeli claiming her to be the wife of the father of the petitioners and hence, she has right over 1/7th part of the suit property. 4. Thereafter, on 02.04.2025, after receiving notices, the petitioners submitted a preliminary objection to the application filed by respondent No.5 before the Tehsildar, but the Tehsildar concerned continued with the matter ignoring the fact that the civil suit as well as application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 is pending and he has given a next date as 25.04.2025. On 21.04.2025, respondent No.5 also submitted its reply to the preliminary objection and on 03.04.2025, the next date was given in civil suit as 10.06.2025. The Tehsildar further proceeded in the matter filed under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, Code, 1959’) during the pendency of civil suit, of which the question of title is involved, thus being aggrieved by the further proceedings of the Tehsildar Mungeli as also pendency of application under Order XXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC has continued the proceedings of Section 178 of the Code, 1959, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and application for temporary injunction are pending consideration, as such the Tehsildar should have opted not to continue the proceeding under 5 Section 178 of the Code, 1959. He further submits that as the issue of title is involved, as such, learned Tehsildar should not have proceeded with the matter till the decision of the civil suit as it is a well settled law that the issue of title should be decided by the competent civil Court only. It has been contended that against the orders dated 07.03.2025 and 14.10.2024 passed by the SDO (R) and Tehsildar Mungeli, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioners with respect to the suit property before the Commissioner Bilaspur Division and on 17.04.2025, the matter was heard on application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 for grant of stay and next date was given as 24.04.2025 for orders on stay. It has been further contended that the judgments of the civil Courts are binding on the revenue authorities and during the pendency of civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the Tehsildar should have stayed the proceedings pending. It has been argued that if during the pendency of application of temporary injunction, Tehsildar passed the order of partition of holdings with respect to the suit property, then respondent No.5 may sell/transfer/mortgage the suit property and it will cause irreparable loss to the petitioners. It has been further argued that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property and the civil suit has been instituted on the basis of a will dated 10.08.2020 with respect to the suit property in favour of the petitioners by their father. 6 6. Learned State counsel opposes the said submission and submits that the petitioners are an unauthorized occupant of the land in question, as such, the petitioners are not having any authority to retain the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 8. 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/Tehsildar have no power to pass any order in respect of the property in question. 9. 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 Tehsildar cannot pass any order in respect of the property in question. Relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- “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 7 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 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 8 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.” 10. 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 Pradesh on 05.12.2020. Once the Civil Court is seized of 9 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.” 11. 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 initiate proceeding under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 for partition of the property as the Tehsildar has been duly informed that a Civil Suit for declaration, permanent injunction as also in-alternative partition along with separate possession has already been pending before the Court of Civil Judge Class II Mungeli, which the Tehsildar has recorded vide order dated 07.03.2025. However, the Tehsildar is still not terminated the proceeding, therefore, the entire partition proceedings bearing Revenue Case Nos.202503250200018/A- 27/2024-25 and 202503250200019/A-27/2024-25 pending before the Tehsildar, Mungeli is hereby quashed. The petitioners are directed to pursue their matter before the concerned civil Court and till the decision of the application for grant of temporary injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, the respondent authorities are restrained from removing the possession of the petitioners. 12. It is made clear that no unlimited time is given to the petitioners to pursue their application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the 10 CPC which has been filed before the civil Court and they are directed to pursue the said application within some expeditious time, preferably within 45 days. The concerned Civil Judge Class II, Mungeli is directed to decide the said application expeditiously. 13. With the above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh