1 2025:CGHC:61413-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3810 of 2025 D.S. Uikey S/o Late Laxman Uikey Aged About 57 Years R/o J.P. Vihar, Sector- 2, Mangla, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Torwa Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - The Sub Divisional Officer Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Tehsildar Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Sharma, learend counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow this application and stay the further proceedings pursuant to registration of F.I.R. bearing No. 0281 (dated 25.06.25) registered at P.S. Torwa District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable U/S 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2025, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur (respondent No.2) submitted a communication to Collector, Bilaspur intimating the fact that in the year 2017-2018 the concerned Patwari Suresh Kumar Mishra has dealt with 11 and 23 partition cases which was duly certified by the competent authority i.e the petitioner on 30.09.2017 & 23.10.2017. All these partitions are those partitions which formed the part of land acquisition cases this creates doubt over the said partition, it was further intimated that neither any proclamation nor any notice to any of the affected persons is found on record. Some of the mutations have been made on the basis of resolutions passed by panchayat in which resolution of panchayat is annexed. It was further intimated that in the mutation register the concerned Patwari had recorded the partition on the basis of mutual consent however Khasra No.201/1 was mutated on the basis of sale deed dated 29.03.2010 in the name of Manish Agrawal, Khasra No.213/4 was mutated on the basis of sale deed dated 11.06.2013 in the name of Dr Abhiram Sharma, Khasra No.214/9, 10 is recorded on the basis of sale deed dated 17.12.2008 in the name of Anil Saluja and Sunil Saluja, Khasra No.214/11 is 3 recorded on the basis of sale deed dated 06.06.2015 in the name of Vipul Rai and Khasra No.214/12 has been recorded on the basis of sale deed dated 11.12.2012 in the name of Iqbal which shows that mutation was not made on the basis of mutual consent or prior possession. It was further intimated that in the partition cases the original land holder had not got any share and the partition is made only between the legal heirs. It was further intimated that the concerned patwari had used whitener / paper on the register of batwara thus committed forgery. It was further intimated that on the basis of report submitted by the District Level Committee dated 02.02.2024 the award was passed on 10.05.2021 amounting to Rs.4,82,55,381/- and on examination of award it is found that from one land holding different amount of award was granted taking into consideration of the rate fixed for square meter thus loss has been caused to the state ex-chequer. 4. On 25.06.2025, respondent No.3 on the basis of memo dated 24.06.2025 lodged a report before P.S. Torwa District Bilaspur for the offences punishable U/S 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sec.34 of I.P.C. against the petitioner and the concerned patwari Suresh Kumar Mishra. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayer. 5. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the concerned Patwari has dealt with 11 and 23 partition cases, which were by duly certified 4 by the petitioner, who was posted as Tehsildar, on 30.09.2017 and 23.10.2017 and subsequently, in the year 2018 i.e. on 09.09.2018, a Notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act was issued by the Central Government for acquisition of the land, those partition proceedings were formed part of the acquisition proceedings and the entire acquisition proceedings were carried out from 09.10.2018 to 01.01.2019, whereas the petitioner was relieved from the post of Tehsildar, Bilaspur on 04.04.2018 i.e. prior to issuance of aforesaid notification on 09.09.2018. He further submitted that admittedly on 03.09.2017 and 23.10.2017 i.e. the dates on which mutation and partitions were made, nobody knew about any acquisition of land as the notification was issued on 09.09.2018 only and prior to it the petitioner on 04.04.2018 was already relieved from the said Tehsil, therefore, impleading the petitioner as an accused in the present FIR is without any cogent reaon. He further argued that the petitioner had exercised his powers as a Revenue Court and as such, he is protected by the law of land and the Prosecuting Agency cannot sit over the judgments or orders passed by a Judicial or quasi Judicial Authority. He also argued that the mutation which was certified on 30.07.2017 and 23.10.2017 are appelable under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and admittedly, till date no appeals have been filed and the mutation entries are standing till date. It has been submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner bearing MCRCA 5 No.1028/2025 has already been rejected by this Court on 28.10.2025 and further leave to appeal bearing SLP (Criminal) No. 18133/2025 has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the arguments raised are wholly misconceived and liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is not merely the issuance of the Notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act on 09.09.2018, but the systematic and illegal certification of partition and mutation proceedings carried out during his tenure as Tehsildar, which later facilitated unlawful claims and enhanced compensation in the land acquisition proceedings. The timing of the notification does not ipso facto exonerate the petitioner when the acts complained of laid the foundation for subsequent illegal gains. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner, being the supervisory authority, was duty-bound to scrutinize the actions of the Patwari, particularly when an unusually large number of partition cases (11 and 23 cases) were processed and certified within a short span of time. The certification of such partitions, without due verification and in deviation from established procedure, prima facie indicates active connivance, gross negligence, and abuse of official position, which squarely attracts criminal liability. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot 6 seek blanket immunity on the ground that he was exercising powers of a Revenue Court. The protection available to judicial or quasi-judicial officers does not extend to acts tainted with mala fides, corruption, or conspiracy. The prosecuting agency is not sitting in appeal over the orders passed by the petitioner, but is investigating criminal misconduct and conspiracy arising out of the manner in which such orders were passed. The settled position of law is that criminal prosecution is maintainable even against judicial or quasi-judicial authorities where the act is not a mere error of judgment but is actuated by oblique motives or extraneous considerations. 7. With regard to the contention that mutation orders are appealable under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and no appeal has been filed till date, it is submitted by learned State counsel that pendency or non-filing of a revenue appeal has no bearing on criminal culpability. Mutation entries being in force does not sanitize an act which is otherwise alleged to be fraudulent or conspiratorial. Civil or revenue remedies and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres, and one cannot be used as a shield against the other. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner’s argument of being relieved from the post on 04.04.2018 is misleading. The relevant consideration is the period when the impugned acts were committed, i.e., certification of partitions and mutations in 2017. The fact that the land was later acquired only demonstrates the 7 consequential impact of the petitioner’s earlier illegal acts, not their irrelevance. It is also pointed out that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner bearing MCRCA No.1028/2025 has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court on 28.10.2025, and the said order has attained finality as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed SLP (Criminal) No.18133/2025. The rejection of anticipatory bail by both the constitutional Courts clearly indicates that prima facie material exists against the petitioner, and the present submissions are nothing but an attempt to re-argue the merits indirectly. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences, the investigation is at a crucial stage, and no case is made out for interference. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are devoid of merit and deserve to be rejected. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 9. The principal contention of the petitioner that he had certified the partition and mutation proceedings in the year 2017, much prior to the issuance of Notification dated 09.09.2018 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, and that he was relieved from the post of Tehsildar on 04.04.2018, does not, at this stage, absolve him of criminal liability. The allegations in the FIR, read as a whole, prima facie disclose that the certification of a large number of partition 8 and mutation cases within a short span of time during the petitioner’s tenure laid the foundation for unlawful claims and enhanced compensation in the subsequent land acquisition proceedings. The relevance, therefore, lies in the period when the impugned acts were allegedly committed and not merely in the date of issuance of the acquisition notification. 10. The plea of protection on the ground that the petitioner was exercising powers of a Revenue Court also cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The settled position of law is that while judicial or quasi-judicial officers are protected for bona fide discharge of their functions, such protection does not extend to acts which are prima facie alleged to be tainted with mala fides, abuse of position, or criminal conspiracy. The prosecuting agency is not sitting in appeal over the orders passed by the petitioner, but is investigating allegations of criminal misconduct arising out of the manner in which such orders were passed. 11. The argument that the mutation orders are appealable under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and that no appeals have been filed till date is also of no assistance to the petitioner. Availability or non-exercise of a revenue remedy does not bar criminal prosecution. Civil or revenue proceedings and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields, and the continuance of mutation entries cannot, by itself, legitimize acts which are alleged to be fraudulent or conspiratorial. 9 12. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application bearing MCRCA No.1028/2025 has already been rejected by this Court on 28.10.2025, and the said order has attained finality with the dismissal of SLP (Criminal) No.18133/2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said orders clearly indicate that prima facie material exists against the petitioner. The present petition, in effect, amounts to an indirect attempt to re-agitate the merits, which is impermissible. 13. At this stage, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences, the investigation is still in progress, and no case for interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is made out. 14. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra