1 2026:CGHC:19280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1242 of 2022 1 - Smt. Satto D/o Kedarnath Aged About 35 Years Caste Muriya R/o Village Bade Dharaur Teh. Lohandiguda District Baster Chhattisgarh. 2 - Keshru S/o Gutodi Aged About 50 Years Caste Raut, R/o Village Kumhaarsadra, Tah. Baastanar District Baster Chhattisgarh. 3 - Itwari D/o Gutodi Aged About 40 Years Caste Raut, R/o Village Kumhaarsadra, Tah. Baastanar District Baster Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pardeshi S/o Gutodi Aged About 55 Years Caste Raut, R/o Village Mamadpal Teh. Darbha District Baster Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sukru S/o Pandu Aged About 45 Years Caste Raut, R/o Village Rajur, Tah. Tokapal, District Baster Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sukhram S/o Pandu Aged About 38 Years Caste Raut, R/o Village Rajur, Tah. Tokapal, District Baster Chhattisgarh. 7 - Sukman S/o Late Lachin Aged About 28 Years Caste Raut, R/o Village Rajur, Tah. Tokapal, District Baster Chhattisgarh. 8 - Tularam S/o Late Lachin Aged About 29 Years Caste Raut, R/o Village Rajur, Tah. Tokapal, District Baster Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Add. Collector Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh. 4 - The S. D. O. (Rev.) Tah. Tokapal, District Baster Chhattisgarh. 5 - Narendra S/o Late Sonaruram Caste Muria, R/o Village Rajur Tah.Tokapal, District Baster Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 17.02.2022 and 26.08.2021 passed by res. no. 03 and 04 respectively and other related proceedings thereof is illegal, bad and quash the same. 3 10.3 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 5 preferred an application under Section 170-B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), asserting that the land bearing Khasra No. 1653, admeasuring 1.850 hectares (earlier Khasra No. 194/1 measuring 6.22 acres), originally stood recorded in the name of his ancestor, Sonadhar S/o Dashrat. It was alleged that in the year 1967, one Chandan S/o Somaru, by impersonating himself as a member of a Scheduled Tribe, fraudulently purchased the said land from Sonadhar and subsequently got his name mutated in the revenue records. Upon receipt of the said application, respondent No. 4 registered a case and issued notices to the petitioners, who, upon appearance, filed their reply raising a preliminary objection that an earlier application under Section 170-B of the Code had already been filed by the ancestor of respondent No. 5, namely Mahadev S/o Sonadhar, before the SDO, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), which was initially allowed directing restoration of the land, however, in appeal, the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur set aside the said order, and the subsequent appeal and revision preferred by Mahadev before the Commissioner, Bastar Division and the Revenue Board, Gwalior (M.P.) were also dismissed. It is further stated that thereafter, vide order dated 26.08.2021, respondent No. 4, after hearing both parties, rejected the preliminary 4 objections raised by the petitioners and directed them to produce documents substantiating their claim of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision before respondent No. 3, which too came to be dismissed after due consideration. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are wholly contrary to the settled principles of law and suffer from manifest illegality. It is contended that the courts below have failed to appreciate that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to proceedings under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, unless expressly excluded by statute, and no such exclusion exists in the present case; however, both the revenue authorities have erroneously held otherwise. Learned counsel further submits that the issue pertaining to the very same land transaction, originating from the sale deed executed in the year 1967, has already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings initiated by the ancestor of respondent No. 5, wherein though the SDO initially allowed restoration, the said order was set aside by the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur, and the subsequent appeal and revision preferred before the Commissioner, Bastar Division and the Revenue Board, Gwalior (M.P.) were also dismissed, thereby attaining finality. It is urged that despite such conclusive adjudication, the respondents have been permitted to reagitate the same cause, which is impermissible in law. It is further 5 submitted that the revenue courts have overlooked the mandate of Section 43 of the Code, which expressly provides that the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to proceedings under the Code in the absence of any contrary provision, thereby attracting the principle of res judicata. In these circumstances, learned counsel contends that the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 and the consequential proceedings are arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law, and therefore liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the reliefs sought are misconceived and untenable in law, and therefore do not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, at the outset, submits that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner against the order passed by the Additional Collector, and without exhausting such statutory remedy, they have directly approached this Hon’ble Court and even obtained an ex parte interim order, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that the courts below have passed well- reasoned and speaking orders after due consideration of all material evidence on record, and thus the same do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference. Learned 6 counsel contends that the land in question originally belonged to the ancestors of the answering respondent, who are members of the Scheduled Tribe community, and the petitioners’ predecessors had fraudulently acquired the said land by impersonating themselves as tribals, despite not belonging to such category, which renders the transaction void in law. It is submitted that, in order to rectify such illegality, the answering respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tokapal, and the said authority, upon proper appreciation of evidence, rightly passed orders in favour of the answering respondent. It is further urged that the enquiry proceedings are still ongoing, and the petitioners have full opportunity to participate and establish their case; however, instead of cooperating, they have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability under Section 170-B, which have been duly rejected, and even their revision has been dismissed. It is contended that the proceedings cannot be scuttled at a preliminary stage on the ground of res judicata, as consistently held in various judicial pronouncements. It is also submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Additional Collector has already been dismissed on merits, and thereafter, bypassing the statutory remedy of further appeal, the petitioners have prematurely invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that no case for 7 interference is made out, all adverse averments made by the petitioners are denied, and the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed with costs. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tokapal, District Bastar, it is found that no further adjudication survives in the present petition, inasmuch as the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners have already been duly considered and rejected by the competent authority, with a specific observation that such objections shall be examined in detail at the stage of final hearing of the proceedings instituted under Section 170-B of the C.G. Land Revenue Code. In view thereof, it is apparent that the matter is still pending consideration before the appropriate forum, and all issues raised by the petitioners remain open to be adjudicated in accordance with law during the final proceedings, rendering the present petition premature and devoid of any subsisting cause for interference at this stage. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, Tokapal, District Bastar, and to file an appropriate reply, including all objections available to them in accordance with law. The said authority is, in turn, directed to consider and decide the 8 case strictly in accordance with law, duly taking into account the objections so raised by the petitioners. All parties are further directed to appear before the competent authority and to lead their respective evidence in support of their claims. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tokapal, Bastar shall thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits of the case, after affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 9. The State counsel is directed to communicate about this order forthwith. 10. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat