1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2586 of 2022 1 - Paramjeet Kaur Hanspal Wd/o Late Shri Surendra Singh Hanspal, Singh, Aged About 48 Years R/o Hanspal Villa, Lane No. 4, Fafadih, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, Through Its Secretary, Besides Office Of Chief Election Commissioner, Shashtri Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, Besides Office Of Chief Election Commissioner, Shashtri Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through Municipal Commissioner, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Executive Engineer (Na.San.Madhya) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Smt. Rani Virdi Wd/o Late Shri Pritam Singh Virdi, R/o Honspal Villa, Lane No. 4, Fafadih Naka, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.30 11:17:03 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 :- Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.4 :- Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 :- Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.04.2025 1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The records pertaining to proceedings in pursuance to complaint by Respondent no.6 may be called for kind perusal of this Court from Respondent no.2 10.2. That, the impugned orders dated 05.02.2022 and 07.04.2022 passed by Respondents no.2 & 3 may kindly be set aside/ quashed. 10.3. That, the proceedings arising out of the complaint of respondent no.6 before respondents no.2 & 3 may kindly be quashed. 10.4. That, Respondents may be penalised for illegal harassment of petitioner by compensating her with cost of Rs.one lakh. 10.5. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem just and fit in facts and 3 circumstances of the case.” 2. The dispute, as canvassed in this petition, is that a registered sale deed was executed on 07.02.2020 by Respondent No. 6 in favour of the petitioner through a Power of Attorney. Subsequently, Respondent No. 6 filed a complaint before the Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog, alleging that the registered sale deed had been executed fraudulently and that she had not sold the land. The Chhattisgarh Rajya Mahila Ayog took cognizance of the complaint and issued an order dated 05.02.2022. Thereafter, an FIR was also lodged, which was later closed under Section 155 of the CrPC. Subsequently, the Ayog directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, to delete the petitioner’s name and retain the name of Respondent No. 6 in the revenue records. Thereafter, another order was passed on 07.04.2022, directing that the electric meter be retained in the name of Respondent No. 6. These two orders are under challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without giving any notice or any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the concerned respondent authority has passed the orders dated 05.02.2022 & 07.04.2022, which are illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. He submits that the said proceedings against the petitioner has been arisen due to the complaint made by the respondent No. 6 and the proceeding initiated by the C.G. Rajya Mahila Ayog is beyond the jurisdiction, therefore, the orders are required to be quashed/set-aside by allowing the petition. It is also stated that 4 during the pendency of this petition, the Ayog has also passed an order dated 10.06.2022. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the State is a formal party in the petition and the dispute relates to the other concerned parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the State Government has enacted the legislature for constituting the State Commission for the women and for providing the matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. He submits that the respondent number 6 has filed the complaint on 26.03.2021 that the petitioner has executed the sale deed in his mother name, without paying any consideration of the same. After taking cognizance of the complaint, the case has been registered and thereafter the impugned interim orders dated 05.02.2022 & 07.04.2022 have been passed and directions were issued to the respondent No. 4, in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner has purchased a land from Respondent no.6 after certain payment and the sale deed was executed between parties and the name of the petitioner entered in the land records after mutation. After execution of sale deed, the respondent No. 6 started objecting with false allegations and filed complaint before the Ayog for cancellation of sale deed registered in favour of the petitioner and the direction was issued to the respondent No. 4 from the Ayog. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that both orders dated 05.02.2022 & 07.04.2022 were passed by the Ayog. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Ayog is merely a recommendatory body and does not have the authority to pass binding orders affecting the rights of the parties. Furthermore, there exists a dispute concerning the registered sale deed executed between the parties. While one party contends that the sale deed was never executed, the other asserts that it was duly executed. In such circumstances, the dispute regarding the validity and execution of the sale deed can only be adjudicated by a Competent Civil Court. Therefore, the Ayog ought not to have passed such directions. Accordingly, the orders dated 05.02.2022 & 07.04.2022 are hereby set-aside/quashed. 9. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are at liberty to relegate their matter before the competent Civil Jurisdictional Court for seeking appropriate relief. 10. With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands allowed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha