1 2026:CGHC:19808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2045 of 2026 1 - Smt. Krishna Duwa Alias Krishna Govind Mahendra D/o Sitaram Duwa Aged About 71 Years W/o Late Govind Mahendra Present Age About 71 Years R/o Near Bukhari Petrol Pump Link Poad Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. Through General Power Of Attroney Praful Jha S/o Late R.N. Jha Age Is About 46 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. (Petitioner Name Is Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thruogh District Magistrate And Collector Bilaspur C.G. Office Of Collector, District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Bilaspur Collectorate Campus Tahsil And District -Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Additioanl Tehsildar Bilaspur Tehsil Office, Near Nehru Chowk, Tahsil And District -Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Additional Tehsidar Sakri, Bilaspur Tehsil Office, Near Parsada -Bus Station -Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Durgesh Nandani Alias Babli, D/o Late Chandrakali Dhruw Aged About 47 Years R/o In Front Of Little Flowr School Om Nagar Jarhabhata Bilaspur- Tahsil And -District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Santoshi Jangde W/o Venkat Jangde Aged About 41 Years R/o Gram Damapur- Tahsil And District Mungeli C.G. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 7 - Neelam Sharma W/o Rajendra Sharma Aged About 44 Years R/o Gondpara Behind Agrawal Saw Mill, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Ms. Gunjan Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner/appellant from the possession of respondent's for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly quash/set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 passed by respondent no. 02 in revenue case no. 202506072400092/A-6/2024-25 and also the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed in revenue case no. 202407073200058/A-6/2023-24 by learned Additional Tahsildar Sakri, Bilaspur (C.G.)/ Respondent no. 04. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other 3 relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner/Appellant for mental trauma and agony.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the dispute pertains to ancestral land situated at Gram Juna Bilaspur, bearing Khasra No. 616/2, wherein the names of the petitioner and his deceased brother, Late Brijmohan Duwa, were recorded as co-owners in the revenue records. Upon the demise of Late Brijmohan Duwa on 28.07.2022, who is stated to have died unmarried, the petitioner moved an application before the competent revenue authority seeking deletion of the name of the deceased from the revenue records and mutation of his own name as the sole legal heir. During the pendency of the said proceedings, certain objectors, namely Durgesh Nandani, Neelam Sharma, and Santoshi Jangde, raised objections claiming themselves to be the daughters and legal heirs of Late Brijmohan Duwa. The petitioner refuted such claims, inter alia, on the ground that a civil suit filed by the said objectors seeking declaration of paternity had already been dismissed by the learned Family Court, and the said finding was affirmed in appeal by the High Court. It was further asserted that criminal proceedings had also been initiated against some of the objectors for alleged forgery and related offences. Despite the above, the revenue proceedings 4 continued, and the matter eventually reached the appellate authority (SDO), where the petitioner’s appeal against the order of the Tahsildar was pending. During the pendency of the said appeal, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the proposed legal heirs seeking their impleadment as parties in the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings are presently pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), wherein the core issue relates to deletion of the name of Late Brijmohan Duwa from the revenue records. It is contended that despite the limited scope of the proceedings, the SDO has failed to adjudicate the petitioner’s application for deletion of the name of the deceased and has instead entertained and allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. It is further submitted that by the impugned order, the SDO has directed the petitioner to array Smt. Neelam Sharma, Durgesh Nandani, and Santoshi Jangde as respondents and has issued notices to them, without first deciding the primary application of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, such an approach is legally untenable and amounts to misdirection in exercise of jurisdiction. It is argued that the said persons are neither necessary nor proper parties to the mutation proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that their claim as legal heirs of Late 5 Brijmohan Duwa has already been negated by the competent civil court and affirmed in appeal. It is further contended that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and intended only for fiscal purposes, and do not confer title; hence, complicated questions of succession or legitimacy ought not to be adjudicated therein. Learned counsel thus submits that the action of the SDO in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, instead of deciding the petitioner’s application for deletion of name, is arbitrary, contrary to settled principles of law, and has resulted in unnecessary prolongation of proceedings. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer has acted strictly in accordance with law and principles of natural justice by allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. It is contended that since rival claims have been raised regarding the status of legal heirs of the deceased, the presence of Smt. Neelam Sharma, Durgesh Nandani, and Santoshi Jangde is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute. It is further submitted that impleadment of such parties does not prejudice the petitioner and, rather, ensures that all concerned persons are heard before passing any final order in the pending proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 6 6. The undisputed position emerging from the record is that the proceedings in question are still pending adjudication before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), wherein the petitioner has already preferred an appeal challenging the orders passed by the Tahsildar. During the pendency of the said appeal, an interlocutory order has been passed by the SDO allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of certain parties. Thus, it is evident that the matter has not yet attained finality and the appeal itself is still to be decided on merits. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction against such an interlocutory order would not be appropriate, particularly when the competent appellate authority is already seized of the matter and is yet to render final adjudication. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 8. It is further observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies, as may be available under law, in case he remains aggrieved by the final order that may be passed by the SDO. 7 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge