1 2025:CGHC:32464-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 471 of 2025 Anwar Alam S/o Sarvar Alam Aged About 39 Years R/o House No-36, Near Fanidiya Masjid Krishna Nagar Supela Bhilai Tah- And Dist- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Board Of Revenue Circuit Court Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commisssioner Durg Division District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Tahsidar Bhilai Nagar District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Welplan Builder Private Limited Through - Its Director Basant Katariya S/o Late Champalal Resident Of 9/11, Rishabh Nagar Near Mahaveer Colony Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - Khawja Abdul Raheem S/o Abdul Majid Resident Of Mig 2/204. Hudco Bhiali District - Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Shyam Murari Sinha S/o Prabhuram Sinha Resident Of Shanti Nagar Kohka Bhilai Tahsil And District Bhilai Chhattisgarh 8 - Premchand Kothari Son Of Maniklal Ji Kothari Resident Of Nehru Nagar Purv Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 9 - Dr. Mohan Parakh Son Of Dhewarchand Jain Resident Of Lalbag Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 10 - Ravi Singh Kushwaha Son Of T.P.S. Kushwaha Resident Of 101, New Anand Nagar Junwani Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.15 17:46:31 +0530 2 11 - Mangilal Jain Son Of Ramlal Jain Resident Of Kamthee Line Rajnangaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the apellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents / State. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal with following prayer: “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure A/2) passed by Board of Revenue, Circuit Court Raipur, in revenue revision case no. R.N/05/R/A-6/112/2024. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent revenue authorities to restrain themselves to proceed in execution proceedings initiated in furtherance of order dated 29.04.2025 passed in revenue revision case no. R.N/05/R/A- 6/112/2024 pending before Addl. Tehsildar, Bhilai until the civil suit (Suit A/23/2023) is finally adjudicated, (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant 3 any other relief deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 has mutated the land bearing a part of khasra No. 1532/1 admeasuring rakba 1.60 situated at, Halka Patwari No. 50, village Kurud, District Durg in the name of private respondents 8 to 11 vide the order dated 28.01.2006; thereafter in the name of Welplan Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Annexure R/5) vide order dated 28.01.2006 and after the change of Director of the Company, the land was mutated in the name of new director of builder company on 16.07.2015. 4. Being aggrieved by these mutations of land in the name of company (respondent No.5), respondent No.6 i.e. Abdul Raheem Khawja (having possession of land at that point of time) filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Durg on the ground that the grandfather of Abdul Rahim Khwaja i.e. late Abdul Nazeer had purchased the said land having the old khasra No. 563 vide the sale deed dated 30.04.1969 from one Khatoon Bi. It was stated in the appeal that the grandfather, Late Abdul Nazeer died on 13.01.1975 and thereafter the khasra number was renumbered as 1532/1, rakba 1.61 hectares (hereinafter referred as “land in issue”). It was also stated that till 2004-05 in the land records, the said land was recorded under the name of grandfather Late Abdul Nazir. It was specifically alleged that the respondent No.5 came hold of the land through cheating and forgery. 5. In the said appeal, the private respondents were noticed and they 4 appeared through their counsel. After inspecting all the documents and hearing the arguments of both the parties, the SDO vide the order dated 28.11.2022 in Revenue Appeal No. 202107100400482/A-6/2020-21 (Annexure P/11, page 94 of writ petition) came to the following finding:- a. The grandfather late Abdul Nazir died on 13 January 1975. b. As per the power of attorney placed by the respondent Shyam Murari Sinha; the power of attorney was executed by the late grandfather on 4 September 2003 in favour of respondent Shyam Murari Sinha, who on the basis of this power of attorney sold the land to 4 persons namely, private respondents doctor Mohan Parakh, Ravi Singh Kushwaha, Premchand Kothari And Mangilal Jain. c. These 4 persons thereafter sold the land vide the registered sale deed to respondent Welplan builders private limited (respondent No.5). d. The SDO concluded that since the late grandfather Abdul Nazir has already demised in the year 1975 no power of attorney can be issued by him in the year 2003 and set aside all the mutation proceedings carried in favour of the private respondents and restore the land in the name of original land holder that is late 5 Abdul Nazir. 6. In compliance of the said order, the land in issue was mutated in the name of grandsons of late Abdul Nazeer namely Abdul Rahim Khwaja and Abdul Neem Khwaja. Being aggrieved by the order of the SDO dated 28.11.2022, the respondent No. 5-Builder filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Revenue). No stay order was granted by the Commissioner to the private respondents against the order of SDO dated 28.11.2022. Vide the sale deed dated 08.12.2022, the land in issue was sold by the grandsons to the appellant and the name of appellant was mutated in the land record on 23.12.2022. 7. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner, the private respondent No. 5 on 16.01.2023, preferred a Civil Suit before 4th Civil Judge Class II for declaration of title and permanent injunction and for possession of land, which was registered as Civil Suit Class A/23/2023. In this civil suit the private respondent No. 5 has also moved an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. However vide the order dated 27.06.2024, the said application was rejected. 8. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 2-Commissioner rejected the appeal against the order of SDO vide the order dated 16.03.2023 on the ground that since the matter with regard to the title of the disputed land is already pending before the Civil Court, it would not be proper to pass any orders and therefore dismissed the 6 appeal. 9. In the above mentioned civil suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, which provides for grant of temporary injunction ex- party was also filed by the respondent No. 5-Builder, however the said application was rejected by the Civil Court on 13th January 2023. Against the said rejection of temporary injunction, WP(227) No.145 of 2023 was filed before this Court, wherein, an undertaking was given by the Writ Petitioner (respondent no.8 in WP227 No.145/2023) that no third party interest will be created till the disposal of application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 and in light of this undertaking, vide the order dated 02.05.2024, status quo was granted on the property in issue till the disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. It is submitted that the said application was decided on 27.06.2024, and on this date the status quo granted was also revoked. 10. The order dated 27.06.2024 whereby the application of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was dismissed was put to challenge by the respondent No. 5-Builder before the before the District Court in appeal Case No. 24/ 2024, however, the said appeal was also dismissed vide the order dated 03.08.2024. 11. When the private respondent No. 5-Builder failed to obtain any injunction against the appellant, he preferred revision against the order of the Commissioner dated 16.03.2023 for mutation of land in his name before learned Board Of Revenue. It is pertinent to 7 mention that from December 2022 in all the applications filed by the Builder-respondent No.5, may be before Civil Court or before District Court or before the Hon'ble High Court, the appellant herein who is now the legal owner / bhoomiswami of the land in issue, was always made a respondent party. But with pure malafide intent, before learned Board Of Revenue, the appellant herein was not made the respondent party and vide the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 the Learned Board of Revenue, quashed the order of the SDO dated 28.11.2022 and order of Commissioner dated 16.03.2023 and directed for land in issue to be mutated in the name of the private builder, despite the writ petitioner being in lawful possession of the said property. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that Board of Revenue has finally decided the matter and ordered for mutation, which has been challenged by the writ petitioner / appellant herein before the Writ Court. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that since 1969, the possession of the property was with late Abdul Nazir and thereafter by his grandsons Shri Abdul Rahim Khwaja and Shri Abdul Neem Khwaja, and thereafter with the appellant herein. Never ever has the possession ever travelled to the private respondent Builder. The appellant herein was not the party before the learned Board of Revenue, despite he being in the possession of the land, and this fact was very well brought into the knowledge 8 of the learned Board of Revenue. It is submitted that the appellant was not informed about the passing of the order by the learned Board of Revenue by any of the parties and it came in the knowledge of appellant when Tehsildar started initiating the proceedings for mutation in the name of respondent Builder. 14. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2025, the writ petitioner preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge bearing WPC No. 2806/2025, wherein an application for interim relief was also filed for granting stay on the order of learned Board of Revenue as the proceedings before the Tehsildar for mutation were initiated in the name of private builder. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits the respondent No. 5 is a private Builder and the moment the name is mutated in his name, he will not hesitate at all in alienating the property and the writ petitioner seriously apprehends that if no interim relief is granted or if status quo is not granted the respondent No.5 shall create third party interest making the WPC No. 2806/2025 infructuous and creating more complications. 16. Efforts were made on the date of hearing of the matter i.e. on 11.05.2025 for grant of stay or at least to get an order of status quo but the learned Single Judge only issued notices to private respondents. It is submitted that in the instant matter, keeping the stay application pending is creating more harm and its prejudicial to the writ petitioner as once the property in dispute is mutated in 9 the name of private builder, he shall create third party interest. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this fact that before the Civil Court, the respondent builder has moved an application for the possession of the land in issue which itself shows that the writ petitioner and before him the precedessor Abdul Rahim khwaja and Abdul Naeem khwaja, were in the peaceful possession of the and land in issue since 1969 till date. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 18. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant / writ petitioner is in possession of the land in question since 1969 and the learned Single Judge has not decided the interim application of the appellant and only notices have been issued vide order dated 11.06.2025, we deem it appropriate to request the learned Single Judge to consider the interim application of the appellant filed in WPC No. 2806/2025 and pass an appropriate order. 19. List the matter before the learned Single Judge on 17.07.2025. 20. With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet