1 2025:CGHC:3636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 783 of 2019 • Jagnnath Yadav S/o Ghanshyam Yadav, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Nakata (Gandhi Gram), Post Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil- Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Additional Tahsildar, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Aswan Yadav, S/o Jagnnath Yadav, R/o Village Nakata (Gandhi Gram) Post Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil - Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the order, writ or directions to update the revenue record in respect of the petitioner land bearing khasra no. 212 (old no. 43) situated at P.H. No. 74/13 village Nakta Tahsil Arang, District Raipur C.G. and mentioned the name of the petitioner on the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 suit land as per order of the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2014, in the interest of justice. 10(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the judgment and decree with regard to declaration of title and permanent injunction was passed the learned Civil Court, but till date same has not been executed by the revenue authorities. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the revenue authorities to execute the decree passed by the learned Civil Court. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 would oppose. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that for execution of decree of permanent injunction, the petitioner should have approached the competent Court according to the provisions of Order 21 of CPC and the petition filed by the petitioner appears to be misconcieved. 6. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti