1 2025:CGHC:19766 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5803 of 2024 1 - Manohar Yadav S/o Late Dugrulal Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Lodhajhar Tahsil Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Additional Collector Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Dhanpati Yadav S/o Late Dugrulal Yadav Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Lodhajhar Tahsil Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Dhanurjay Yadav S/o Late Dugrulal Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Lodhajhar Tahsil Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.17 12:13:17 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. Roop Ram Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner sought to challenge order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) whereby while hearing revision filed by the petitioner he has confirmed the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Kharsiya. 3. By this instant petition, the petitioner has sought following relief/s : “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued appropriate writ/order by setting-aside /quash the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. 202406043300010/73/A- 27/2023-24 by the respondent No. 2. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order by declaring that the learned revenue authority/revenue court (respondent No.3) that they have no jurisdiction to restrain the petitioner/parties from alienation/buy-sell by exercising the power under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other suitable writ/orders/directions in favour 3 of the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. The fact as summarized by the petitioner in this case is like that the father of the petitioner and the respondents No.5 & 6 possess agricultural land total Khasra No. 14, total area 2.484 hectare situated at Village – Lodhajhar, P.H. No.37, Tehsil – Kharsiya, District - Raigarh. After the death of father of the petitioner and the respondent No.5 and 6, the name of mother of the parties namely Jamuna Bai was recorded in the revenue records. Some portions of the land have been sold due to family requirements. The respondent No.6, one of the real brother has filed an application for partition before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar has declared other parties to be ex-party and has portioned the properties on the basis of pleadings made in the application and accordingly, out of total land of Khasra No. 8, total area 1.4240 hectares the respondent No.6 Dhanurjay has been given in partition total area 0.617 hectares from the aforesaid Khasras and for that the concerned Halka Patwari was directed to get partitioned the property as per the aforesaid order and to mutate his name in the revenue records The said order was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) in an appeal by Dhanpati Yadav who happens to be sister of the petitioner as well as the respondents No..5 & 6. The SDO (R) vide its order dated 29.05.2024 has passed an interim order while restraining the parties from creating third party interest by way of sale and other modes. The aforesaid 4 orders was challenged by the petitioner as well as Dhanurjay Yadav/respondent No.6 in which vide order dated 28.08.2024 the Additional Collector Raigarh has rejected the revision filed by the present petitioner as well as respondent No..6 stating that the interim order of stay has rightly been passed by the SDO (R) by holding that if during the pendency of appeal third party interest would be created while selling the same, it will create multiplicity of the litigation as such the SDO (R) has rightly stayed the order which is in accordance with Section 52 of the Land Revenue Code and the same is not required to be interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order impugned is not accordance with law as by passing the aforesaid order infact the SDO (R) has passed an order of injunction which is exclusive domain of civil jurisdiction Court. The Revenue Court can not pass such an order and therefore the Additional Collector ought to have interfered with the order and should have relegated the parties to approach before the Civil jurisdictional Court for seeking relief in this matter while challenging the partition proceedings which has not been done and in a illegal manner the concerned Additional Collector has passed an order which is required to be interfered with. He has placed reliance upon an order of this Court in the matter of Siraj Ahmed vs State of C.G and others reported in 2017 IV CGLJ 559. 5. No one appears on behalf of the private respondents. 5 6. From the order sheets it appears that notices were not issued and infact the petitioner has taken time on 10.12.2024, 02.01.2025, 09.01.2025, as such, the petition itself could not be heard. Thereafter a Court-slip was taken on 02.04.2025 upon which the case was directed to be listed in the week commencing 28.04.2025. From the perusal of the record it appears that the private respondents are yet to be issued notices, however this fact has been deliberately concealed/suppressed by the petitioner and behind the back of respondent no.5 & 6 the petitioner purported to take relief from this Court. Not a single argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the present matter requires issuance of notices to the respondents No.5 & 6 as they were yet not issued any notices. Before the concerned SDO (R), the respondent No.5 has filed an appeal in which order restraining sale of land was passed by order dated 29.05.2024, as such, the respondent No.5 would be necessary party, since the petitioner by his conduct has suppressed material facts from this Court regarding non-issuance of notices to the private respondents No.5 & 6, as such, this deliberate action from the side of petitioner has been taken seriously by this Court. Further, from the perusal of the order sheets it seems that in not a single occasion the case was heard on merits due adjournment sought by the petitioner. As the revision was against interim order dated 29.95.2024 and the petitioner has not stated anything on the recent status of the case. This deliberate action has been taken into account seriously and 6 accordingly, a cost of Rs.5,000/- is being imposed upon the petitioner for concealing and suppressing material facts during the course of arguments. Looking to the nature of the case, whereby the SDO (R) has passed an order in the nature of temporary injunction for which he has no jurisdiction, the case is being heard on merits. 7. Even other wise also Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 also deals that the nature of order passed is required to be passed by the Court having jurisdictional authority which in the present matter, the revenue Court lacks, as such, the order impugned is also unsustainable. 8. This Court in Seraj Ahmad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others 2017 (4) C.G.L.J. 559 has held that the order to grant injunction is surely vested in the jurisdictional Civil Court and the Revenue Courts cannot grant the order of injunction and it was held that the revenue order granting temporary injunction restraining the transfer would be without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The said judgment was based on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Maya Lalchandani (Mrs.) Vs. Board of Revenue 2009 (3) MPLJ 660, this Court also in respectful agreement with the judgment passed by this Court in Seraj Ahmad Vs. State of C.G. (Supra) the relevant part of the decision is reproduced herein below: 7 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has passed order on 10.03.2016 granting temporary injunction for which he has no jurisdiction, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. He relies upon a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Maya Lalchandani (Mrs.) and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others in which the M.P. High Court has held as under: “4. After going through the order passed by the learned President, Board of Revenue and taking into consideration the legal provisions, we are of the opinion that the directions sisued in paragraph 7 of the order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be allowed to stand. Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code talks of the inherent powers of the Revenue Authorities while Section 43 talks of applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is to be seen from Section 32 that nothing in the Land Revenue Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Section 43 simply provides that unless otherwise expressly provided in the Code, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure shall, so far as may be, followed in all proceedings under the Code. Section 43 in no case would authorise a Revenue Authority to grant an injunction. Section 43 simply provides that the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure so far as may be followed in all proceedings under 8 the Code. It is also to be seen from the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure that an injunction can be granted only by civil Court and by none else. Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code only talks of the inherent powers of the Revenue Courts where they are required to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The powers under Section 32 can be exercised within the Code itself and not beyond the Code. If the Revenue Authority does not have the power to grant injunction then the Board of Revenue also could not grant injunction.” 3. The order to grant injunction is surely vested in the jurisdictional civil court, revenue courts cannot grant order of injunction. Therefore, the order passed by the revenue authority granting temporary injunction restraining transfer following the principle of law laid down in Maya Lalchandani (Supra) is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. It is accordingly set aside. However, the Sub-Divisional officer (Revenue) is directed to take decision on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law, expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 9. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter as the order to grant injunction is surely vested with the jurisdictional Civil Court and the Revenue Courts cannot grant order of injunction as such it is held that the revenue order granting temporary injunction restraining the transfer would be without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 9 10. Accordingly, the petition succeeds, impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh is hereby set-aside. Since the aforesaid order was passed as interim order, the concerned Additional Collector, Raigarh is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, if it is not yet decided. 11. The cost imposed upon the petitioner is directed to be paid within two months before the Registry of this Court and after depositing the same the Registry is directed to remit/transfer it to the High Court Bar Association for library fund. 12. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi