1 2025:CGHC:43318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 929 of 2025 Prasheel Joseph S/o Chandrabhushan Joseph Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Vashudevpara, Post - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund, District Surajpur (C.G.). 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 3 - Tehsildar Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 4 - Nitin Lawrence, Secretary, Diocese Of Chhattisgarh And Trustee / Joint Power Of Attorney Holder C.G., U.C.N.I.T.A Mubai, R/o Rajbhawan, Opposite Gate No. 1, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 5 - Chhandrabhushan Joseph, S/o Late Shri John Alial, R/o Ward No. 5, Vashudev Para, Post - Pithora - District - Mahasamund (C.G.). ...Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraz Khan, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. GA. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 26.08.2025 2 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the stay order dated 11.11.2024, along with the complete revenue proceeding and all order sheets drawn in Revenue Case No.202411120400018/B-121/2024-25 (Nitin Lawrence V/s. Chandrabhushan Joseph and another) (Annexure P-1), by the respondent no. 2 and to issue a suitable writ in the nature of prohibition for preventing an order or decision being made which if made would be subject to certiorari. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3. Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the stay order Annexure P/1 dated 11.11.2024 and the entire proceeding drawn by respondent No.2/SDO (Revenue) in Revenue Case No.202411120400018/B-121/2024-25 (Nitin Lawrence vs Chandrabhushan Joseph and Anr). The respondent no.2 has drawn the proceeding under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on an application preferred by respondent No.4 and passed an order of temporary injunction, without the authority of law or jurisdiction. 3 Section 42 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 simply provides the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) so far as may be followed in all proceedings under the Code. As per the provision of the CPC, an injunction can be granted only by Civil Court and by none else. If the Revenue Authority does not have the power to grant injunction then the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) also could not grant injunction. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision/order dated 24.07.2017 passed by this Court in WP(Art.227) No.771/2013, wherein the Court has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Maya Lalchandani (Mrs.) and others v. Board of Revenue and Ors reported in 2003 (3) MPLJ 660 in which the MP High Court has observed/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 issued in paragraph 7 of the order 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 authorize a Revenue Authority to grant an injunction. Section 43 simply provides that the 4 procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure so far as may be followed in all proceedings under 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." 4. Learned State Counsel contended that respondent No.2/SDO (R) has initiated the proceeding against the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 to secure the ends of the justice. The petitioner is claiming the land in question as a private land, whereas land bearing Khasra No.290/1/ क area 3.0920 hectare is abali land and recorded in the name of the State Government as per Nistar Patrak. Complaint made by respondent No.4 before respondent No.2/SDO stating that out of 3.0920 hectare of land, 339 sq.mt has been sold out by the petitioner through the registered sale deed and also intimated that the present petitioner and his father Chandrabhushan is trying to sale the Abadi land by making an illegal plotting. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that land in question belongs to respondent No.4 and without any Authority of law, petitioner is trying to sell the said land, however, he admitted that respondent No.4 has already filed a civil suit before the Civil Court concerned for the purpose of declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession 5 of the said land. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.4 has already filed a civil suit before the Civil Court concerned for the purpose of declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession of the said land, therefore, rights of the parties shall be determined only by the Civil Court not by the Revenue Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion/observation, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 11.11.2024 is liable to be set-aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 11.11.2024 is hereby set-aside. 10. However, it is also made clear that if any proceedings between the parties on any other application under the provision of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is pending before respondent No.2/SDO (Revenue), same will be adjudicated on its own merits in accordance with relevant rules/law expeditiously. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-