1 2025:CGHC:48779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5117 of 2025 1 - Mahesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Umashankar Soni Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 13 Kahraud, Teh. - Pamgadh, P.S. Pamgadh, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Anil Soni S/o Late Suresh Soni Aged About 55 Years R/o Sonarpara, Champa Tehsil - Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sunil Soni S/o Late Suresh Soni Aged About 45 Years R/o Sonarpara, Champa Tehsil - Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Tehsildar Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Registrar / Deputy Registrar Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Ram Singh Gond S/o Kishore Gond Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Jagdalla, Tehsil - Champa, P.S. - Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Raj Singh Gond S/o Kishore Gond Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Jagdalla, Tehsil - Champa, P.S. - Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.24 18:56:41 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Shri Bhupendra Singh and Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocates For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 23/09/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners are lawful title holders of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 473/1 (1.11 acres) and 473/2 (0.08 acres). The land was purchased by their predecessor, Uma Shankar Soni, through a registered sale deed dated 19.11.1976 from Sunhar Gond, the great-grandfather of Respondents No. 4 & 5. The grandfather of Respondents No. 4 & 5, Saharata Gond, even signed as a witness. Mutation was duly effected on 09.12.1976, and the petitioners' family has been in possession and cultivation since then. In 2017, Saharata Gond falsely claimed that his father, Sunhar Gond, had died in 1970 (instead of 1979) and obtained a forged death certificate from the S.D.O., Champa. Using this, he challenged the 1976 mutation order. On 23.02.2023, the S.D.O. Champa, relying on the false certificate, passed an ex-parte order quashing the mutation after 46 years, condoning the delay without valid reasons. The petitioners applied for correction and cancellation of the false certificate. The Municipal Council Champa later confirmed that Sunhar Gond actually died on 14.10.1979, and the forged death certificate was cancelled. However, their appeal before the Commissioner Bilaspur was dismissed on 20.03.2025. They have now filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, which is pending till today. Meanwhile, the Board of 3 Revenue, on 08.05.2025, directed the parties to maintain status quo. Despite this, Respondents No. 4 & 5 executed an agreement to sell the disputed land. When the petitioners requested the Sub- Registrar (Respondent No. 3) not to permit such transactions in view of the status-quo order, the Sub-Registrar orally refused, claiming that revenue authorities' orders are not binding on them. Finding no other remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the act of the respondents and to protect their title and possession over the disputed land. 3. The petitioners have sought following reliefs in this petition: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records regarding to the case of petitioners for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 - 5 to not execute the sale deed to anyone until the appeal pending before the Board of Revenue is disposed off and also be pleased to restrain the respondent no 3 - 5 to involve any third party on the disputed land (Survey No. 473/1 1.11 acre and 473/2 0.80 acre) of Village - Jagdalla, Pat. Hal. No. 03 Tehsil - Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa. 10.3 Cost of petition may also be granted to the petitioners. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 4 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. This Court finds that on 25.6.2025 the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur passed the following order: “प्रकरण के अवलोकन उपरांत न्यायहित में आगामी तितथि या 1 मा की अवति तक वादभूहिम अवा वादभूहिम से संबंतित अथिभलेखों पर यास्थि'तित बनाये रखने का आदेश हिदया जाता ै।” 6. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the record that the Board of Revenue already passed order on 25.6.2025 and the case was fixed for 21.7.2025 and on 25.8.2025 the Board of Revenue passed the following order: “2. प्रकरण का अवलोकन हिकया गया। हिवचारोपरांत न्यायहित में आगामी पेशी या 01 मा की अवति जो पले ो तक, वादभूहिम एवं वादभूहिम से संबंतित सम'त द'तावेजों पर यास्थि'तित बनाए रखे जाने का आदेश हिदया जाता ै।” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that after passing of the stay order by the Board of Revenue, respondent No.3 has not complied with the order of the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the petitioners have filed the instant petition before this Court. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made, the petitioners are directed to file a representation before respondent No.3 within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in turn respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioners 5 expeditiously after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the private respondents herein in accordance with law/rules/regulations. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 9. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Gopal