1 2026:CGHC:11386 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 514 of 2026 Ramjeet S/o Late Bhukhal Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Jamdeyi, P.S. Jainagar Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Smt. Hulsi Devi W/o Moharsai Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Jamdeyi, P.S. Jainagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 10.03.2026 1. By this petition filed u/s 528 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, the petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the 2nd Addl. Session Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Criminal Revision No.19/2025 arising out of the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Surajpur, District Surajpur in criminal case. 2. (i) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed application u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Surajpur, stating that the land bearing Kh. No.1356 admeasuring 0.686 hectares is situated in village Jamdeyi, and the petitioner encroached the entire land. When the respondent tried to 2 restrain the petitioner, the petitioner abused and tried to assault the respondent. Despite such resistance, the petitioner continued to plough the land in question. (ii) The respondent made a complaint before the Police authority on 26.08.2023. He further moved the application u/s 145 of CrPC, 1973 before the SDM, Surajpur praying that the petitioner be restrained from entering into the suit land. That apart, respondent also filed application u/s 146 of CrPC for seizure and confiscation of the standing crop from the petitioner. (iii) By order dated 06.08.2025, the SDM allowed the application, granted stay order regarding the disputed land, restrained the petitioner from entering the disputed land, and further issued a direction to hand over the possession of the disputed land along with the attached/seized crops to the respondent(s) Hulsi Devi. Being aggrieved by the SDM’s order, revision was preferred before the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Surajpur. The revisional Court rejected the revision holding that the respondent was in possession of the land and not the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the revisional Court as well as the SDM have not considered the fact that the suit land is a Government Patta Land which has been bequeathed to the respondent, whereas the original holder had no competence to execute a will in favour of respondent. 4. Perusal of the material placed on record would go to show that in a case u/s 145 of Cr.P.C., the SDM has called for a site inspection report from the Revenue Inspector. The Revenue Inspector of Revenue Circle- Keshavnagar, Tehsil and District-Surajpur (C.G.), submitted a site inspection report dated October 31, 2023, regarding the disputed land situated in Village Jamdei, Khasra No. 1356, with an area of 0.59 hectares. 3 The said report purports that the disputed land is jointly recorded in the revenue records in the names of respondent/ applicants, Smt. Hulsi Devi and Sharmila Singh, under the category of 'Bhoomi Swami' (landowner) rights. 5. The SDM by order dated 06.08.2025 considering the report of revenue inspector held that the respondent/applicant Smt. Hulsi Devi, wife of Moharsai is in possession of the suit land since before filing of petition and she is proved to have been in possession of the suit land two months prior to the date of the suit and thus passed the stay order restraining the petitioner. 6. The revisional Court has also taken the basis of inspection report and accordingly dismissed the revision. The revisional Court observed that the land in dispute is agricultural land and the petitioner had forcibly taken possession of the disputed land by sowing a paddy crop on it. Two months prior to the date of the suit (i.e., before the crop was sown), the respondent Smt. Hulsi Devi was in possession of the disputed land. The Court further observed that respondent Hulsi Devi, has submitted Form B-1 (Kistbandi Khatauni) for the year 2019-2020 regarding the disputed land, wherein the names of Hulsi Devi and Sharmila Singh, stand recorded under the 'Asamiwar' (tenant-wise) category. The petitioner has failed to submit any revenue document in support of his reply that would demonstrate his possession of the disputed land for the past 80–85 years. Thus, based on site inspection report regarding the disputed land, which was called for by the SDM from the concerned Revenue Inspector; the revisional Court affirmed the finding of trial Court that respondent/applicant Hulsi Devi, was in possession of the disputed land and her name is duly recorded in the revenue records under 'Bhoomi Swami' rights. 4 7. It is noteworthy that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order after affording both parties a full opportunity to be heard. Both the courts below have taken the basis of inspection report of the Revenue Inspector and recorded the concurrent finding that respondent Hulsi Devi is in possession of the suit land and not the petitioner. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition filed under section 528 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 warranting interference in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in the impugned orders regarding possession of respondent. 9. Accordingly, this petition has no merit and is dismissed in motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao