1 / 10 2026:CGHC:19778-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 347 of 2026 1 - Harivansh Dubey S/o Late Jagatdhari Dubey Aged About 74 Years R/o Pratappur Naka, P.S. Ambikapur, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhupnath Dubey S/o Late Jagatdhari Dubey, Aged About 67 Years R/o Pratappur Naka, P/s Ambikapur, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Virendranath Dubey S/o Late Chhabinath Dubey Aged About 59 Years R/o Pratappur Naka, P/s Ambikapur, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 4 - Devendranath Dubey S/o Late Chhabinath Dubey, Aged About 55 Years R/o Pratappur Naka, P/s Ambikapur, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 5 - Vinod Dubey S/o Late Chhabinath Dubey Aged About 53 Years R/o Pratappur Naka, P/s Ambikapur, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shailendranath Dubey ( Deleted ) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 17/09/2024 ... Appellants versus 1 - State of C.G. Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Now Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 – The Collector Ambikapur, District Surguja , Chhattisgarh 3 – The Nazul Officer Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.05.06 16:32:37 +0530 2 / 10 4 - The Tahsildar Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 29/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and set-aside the impugned order/judgment dated 19.02.2026 (Annexure - A/1) and may kindly be pleased to remand the matter before the Hon’ble Single Bench with direction to hear and decide the WP(C) No.1966/2012 on merit on the basis of reply of the respondents or this Hon’ble Court may humbly pleased to direct State Government to decide the representation of petitioner as per direction of Hon’ble Court order dated 3 / 10 05.12.2011 and 31.10.2012 in the light of circular issued in the year 1956 & 1965, in the ends of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.1966/2012 & another connected matter, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed. 4. In the said writ petition WPC No.1966 of 2012 following reliefs were sought by the petitioners:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession over the land in question Khasra No.2009/1 Rakba 3.03 acre. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent from taking any action of demolition against the constructing houses or any part of the petitioners. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.” 5. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that the land in question was recorded in the names of forefathers of the present petitioners prior to 1954 and Board of Revenue vide 4 / 10 its order dated 20/08/1984 has ordered for settlement of land upon Smt. Sughra Devi, mother of the present petitioners. The subordinate authorities of the State Government are only required to pass an order of settlement in respect of land in question upon the petitioners, which has yet not been done. Feeling aggrieved with the same the said writ petition bearing WPC No.1966/2012 was filed. 6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and appreciating the material available on record dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and has passed the following order which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 6) Admittedly, perusal of prayer made in WPC No. 1966 of 2012 would show that petitioners have filed this petition seeking decree of permanent injunction whereas prayer made in WPC No. 2402 of 2018 appears to be relief seeking decree of declaration of title. 7) It is well settled principle of law that where the title of the petitioner is itself in dispute, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit and not a writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Versus Rajendra Shankar Patil1 while emphasizing power 1 (2010) 8 SCC 329 5 / 10 of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India has made it clear that property disputes and "pure property matters" should not be entertained under writ jurisdiction. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below:- 64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petition under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between 6 / 10 private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown, that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority. 66. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev (supra) and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 of CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law. 67. As a result of frequent interference by 7 / 10 Hon'ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, Hon'ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest Courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly. 8) In light of the foregoing discussion, the nature of reliefs sought in these petitions and the settled legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed reserving liberty in favor of petitioners to file civil suit along withapplication for grant of temporary injunction within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8 / 10 9) Respondent authorities are restrained from taking any coercive steps against petitioners for period of 30 days. 7. Calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 19.02.2026, the appellants/writ petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 8. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the order passed by the learned Single Bench is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law for the reason that the petitioners had file the writ petition challenging the demolition action of the respondent authorities, therefore, the writ petition was maintainable. He further submits that in the encroachment proceeding of the year 1969 the Revenue Authority i.e. Naib Tehsildar has held that the possession of the petitioners is prior to 1954 and the same may be settled in the name of Smt. Sudhara Devi as per the circular of the State Government and also in the second encroachment proceeding of the year 1981 finally the Board of Revenue has also passed order for settlement in the name of Smt. Sudhara Devi and ignoring the same the revenue authorities have constructed the houses of the petitioners. He would next submit that when the status of the petitioners is to be decided and when the revenue authorities have already passed orders directing the respondents to settle the land in favour of petitioners, then without passing the order and without giving 9 / 10 opportunity of hearing the demolition cannot be done. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners and submits that the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. It is contended that according to the documents which were filed in the writ petition to which the State has also filed reply perusal of the same would show that the appellants/writ petitioners could not place any document of title to prove that they were not the encroachers. Therefore, it is urged that the present appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 11. A plain reading of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge would reveal that the claim of the appellants/writ petitioners has been duly considered and the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that when the title of the petitioner is itself in dispute, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit and not a writ petition. 12. In the present case, the reliefs sought by the appellants clearly involve adjudication of disputed questions of title, which cannot be effectively or appropriately determined in writ proceedings. The learned Single Judge has also granted liberty to the appellants to avail appropriate remedy before the civil court, which adequately 10 / 10 safeguards their rights. This Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in intra- court appellate jurisdiction. The scope of interference in an intra- court appeal being limited, this Court does not find any compelling ground to take a different view. 13. Consequently, in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- SD/- SD/- SD/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu