1 2026:CGHC:23357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 19.03.2026 Order passed on : 15.05.2026 WPC No. 74 of 2020 1 - Usil Ram S/o Late Hublal Ram Aged About 40 Years Occupation Business And Agriculture, R/o Village Singitana, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, Post Office Lahpatra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department, Of Revenue Disaster And Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tahsildar Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - National Highway Authority Of India (Ministry Of Road, Trasport And Highway), Through The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Plot No. A-7, V I P Estate, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, National Highway, Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Siyambar S/o Late Lorgod Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Singitana, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhanpur, Post Office Lahpatra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Advocate General For Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)] C.A.V. Order 1. The present petition has been instituted by the petitioner, a permanent resident of Village Singitana, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, seeking redressal against the arbitrary and unjust action of the respondent authorities. The petitioner is the lawful owner and in peaceful possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 286/2 and 286/6, situated within the aforesaid village, over which he has been undertaking construction activities strictly in accordance with law and within the bounds of his proprietary rights. It is submitted that, while the petitioner was bona fide raising construction on his own land, Respondent No. 3, acting on erroneous, misleading, and factually incorrect information, has proceeded to pass an order of injunction against the petitioner. By virtue of the said impugned order, the petitioner has been unlawfully restrained from continuing the construction over his own property, thereby causing grave prejudice, financial loss, and undue hardship to him. The petitioner submits that the impugned order is not only based on incorrect appreciation of facts but has also been passed without proper verification of the revenue records and without 3 affording the petitioner an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. The action of Respondent No. 3 is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the aforesaid circumstances, having been left with no efficacious or alternative remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present petition, seeking following reliefs : “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus / certiorari or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 (Annexure P-1). 10.2. That, a command / direction may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to initiate a proper enquiry in relation to the manipulation of revenue records and misuse of land followed by appropriate action against the delinquent persons. 10.3. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded alongwith the cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, as canvased are that, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Singitana, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, and is the lawful owner and in peaceful possession of several parcels of land situated therein, bearing Khasra Nos. 285/3, 286/2, 286/6, 311/1, 334/18, 394/4 and 394/6. The petitioner’s title and possession over the said lands are duly reflected in the revenue records, including B-1, P-II and the village 4 map. It is submitted that certain lands in Village Singitana were acquired in the past by the Water Resources Department for the purpose of construction of a canal. However, subsequent to such acquisition, the revenue records have not been properly updated or maintained by the concerned authorities. Owing to such lapses and discrepancies in the records, certain individuals have been attempting to take undue advantage by manipulating entries and asserting false claims over lands which do not belong to them. The private respondent, who is also a resident of the same village, had his own land acquired by the Water Resources Department. Despite this, the private respondent has been persistently and falsely asserting rights over the petitioner’s land. In furtherance of such mala fide intention, the private respondent submitted a false and frivolous complaint before the concerned Tahsildar, alleging that the petitioner was raising construction over land bearing Khasra No. 287/1, which does not belong to the petitioner. The said complaint is based on incorrect and misleading facts, as the petitioner has been undertaking construction only over his own land bearing Khasra Nos. 286/2 and 286/6. Acting upon the said false complaint and without conducting any proper inquiry or verification of the factual position, the Tahsildar proceeded to pass an order of injunction dated 16.10.2019 against the petitioner. The said order has been passed ex parte, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and is thus wholly without jurisdiction and in clear 5 violation of the principles of natural justice. Upon receipt of notice of the said proceedings, the petitioner promptly submitted a detailed reply dated 08.11.2019, categorically denying the allegations made by the private respondent and asserting that the construction activities were being carried out strictly on his own land bearing Khasra Nos. 286/2 and 286/6. The petitioner further brought to the notice of the authorities that the private respondent, in collusion with certain officials of the Revenue Department as well as the National Highways Authority of India, was attempting to manipulate the revenue records with an ulterior motive to claim compensation and derive unlawful personal gain. In order to safeguard his rights and bring the irregularities to the attention of higher authorities, the petitioner submitted a detailed complaint before the Collector as well as the Commissioner. In the said complaint, the petitioner specifically pointed out that several plots bearing Khasra Nos. 333, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348 and 287/1 were recorded in the revenue records as Gauthan and Gochar land meant for common use by villagers. It was further highlighted that Khasra No. 287/2 was recorded in the name of the private respondent, and that he, in connivance with certain officials, was encroaching upon the said lands for personal use. The petitioner also raised serious concerns regarding the construction of a road by the authorities of the National Highways Authority of India over the said lands, contrary to the approved master plan, which envisaged 6 construction on different plots. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the Commissioner, taking cognizance of the matter, issued a communication dated 02.12.2019 to the Collector, directing appropriate action in the matter. However, despite the lapse of considerable time, no action has been taken by the authorities on the petitioner’s complaint. On the contrary, the petitioner continues to suffer prejudice on account of the illegal and arbitrary injunction order, which has restrained him from carrying out construction over his own land. Hence, being aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities and the illegal restraint imposed upon him, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 16.10.2019, passed by the Tahsildar, Lakhanpur, is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is emphatically contended that the Tahsildar, while exercising powers under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, has no authority to grant an order of injunction restraining a person from raising construction over his land. The power to grant injunction, whether temporary or permanent, is a substantive judicial power which vests exclusively in the competent Civil Court under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, the impugned order, having been passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction, is a nullity and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the 7 impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. No proper or effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing of the said order. The Tahsildar, acting in undue haste, proceeded to pass an ex parte injunction order on 16.10.2019 immediately after the complaint dated 15.10.2019, without issuance of notice or affording the petitioner an opportunity to place his case on record. Such a course of action is impermissible in law, as it violates the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem, rendering the order void ab initio. Learned counsel submits that the very foundation of the impugned order is factually incorrect and based on a false and misleading complaint. The petitioner has not carried out any construction on the land bearing Khasra No. 287/1, as alleged by the private respondent. On the contrary, the construction activities are confined strictly to the petitioner’s own land bearing Khasra Nos. 286/2 and 286/6, over which he is the lawful owner and in possession. Even otherwise, assuming without admitting the existence of a dispute, it is well settled that the Tahsildar is not competent to adjudicate such disputes by way of granting injunction, and the parties must be relegated to the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed in a most arbitrary and mechanical manner, without undertaking any proper inquiry or verification of facts. No demarcation report was called for from the concerned Patwari prior to passing the injunction order. The 8 sequence of events clearly demonstrates undue haste, as the complaint was filed on 15.10.2019 and the impugned order came to be passed on 16.10.2019, without even issuing notice to the petitioner. Such non-application of mind and failure to follow due procedure vitiates the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the recorded owner and in settled possession of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 285/3, 286/2, 286/6, 311/1, 334/18, 394/4 and 394/6 in Village Singitana, and the construction being raised is strictly confined to Khasra Nos. 286/2 and 286/6. The dispute has been artificially created by the private respondent, whose own land bearing Khasra Nos. 287/1 and 287/2 has already been acquired by the Water Resources Department. Despite having no subsisting right, title, or interest, the private respondent has lodged a false complaint with mala fide intent to harass the petitioner and to lay an illegal claim over the petitioner’s land. It is submitted that upon receipt of notice, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 08.11.2019, specifically bringing on record the true factual position and exposing the falsity of the allegations. The petitioner also highlighted the collusion between the private respondent and certain officials of the Revenue Department and the National Highways Authority of India, aimed at manipulating revenue records to secure wrongful compensation and derive unlawful gains. Learned counsel further submits that a subsequent demarcation conducted at the instance of the petitioner, and in accordance with due procedure, clearly 9 establishes that the petitioner is in possession of his own land and that the land of the private respondent has been fully acquired, leaving his area as nil. This demarcation report conclusively disproves the allegations made by the private respondent and demonstrates that the impugned order is based on erroneous and manipulated facts. On the other hand, the ex parte demarcation report relied upon by the private respondent is a fabricated document, obtained in collusion with revenue officials and without notice to the petitioner, and thus deserves no evidentiary value. It is also submitted that the petitioner has consistently raised grievances before the competent authorities regarding large-scale manipulation of revenue records and encroachment over Gauthan and Gochar lands (Khasra Nos. 333 to 348) by the private respondent in connivance with officials. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, who directed the Collector to take appropriate action, no effective steps have been taken, thereby necessitating the intervention of this Court. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order, having been passed without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice, and on the basis of incorrect and unverified facts, is liable to be quashed. It is further prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the Collector, Surguja, to conduct a thorough and impartial inquiry into the alleged manipulation of revenue records and take appropriate action against the erring officials and private respondent. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed 10 upon the judgments passed in Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors. Vs. Khelavan & Ors. (WP(227) No. 771/2013 decided on 24.07.2017) and Smt. Lalti Devi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WP(C) No. 2151/2017 decided on 04.09.2017), wherein it has been held that revenue authorities have limited jurisdiction and cannot grant reliefs which fall within the exclusive domain of civil courts. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6, at the outset, submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Tahsildar, Lakhanpur, primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, while simultaneously levelling vague and unsubstantiated allegations against the revenue authorities and officials of the National Highways Authority of India. It is contended that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. Learned counsel further submits that the answering respondent is the lawful owner and in settled possession of land bearing Khasra No. 287/1, admeasuring 0.211 hectare, situated at Village Singitana, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja. The said land was duly purchased by Respondent No. 6 through a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1994 executed by Shiv S/o Jarha, and 11 thereafter his name has been duly recorded in the revenue records. The entries in Form P-II Khasra clearly reflect the ownership and possession of the answering respondent, thereby establishing his lawful title over the disputed land. It is submitted that ever since the purchase of the said land, the answering respondent has remained in peaceful possession thereof. However, in recent times, the petitioner, with an ulterior motive, has started interfering with the possession of Respondent No. 6 by falsely claiming rights over the said land. In order to safeguard his lawful possession, the answering respondent initiated demarcation proceedings before the competent authority, which culminated in a report dated 09.07.2015 prepared by the concerned Patwari in the presence of villagers. The said demarcation report categorically records that the petitioner had encroached upon the land of Respondent No. 6 by storing building materials thereon, thereby substantiating the allegation of unauthorized occupation. Learned counsel submits that despite the aforesaid demarcation and clear findings against the petitioner, he continued his illegal activities and proceeded to raise construction over the land of Respondent No. 6 by erecting columns. Consequently, the son of Respondent No. 6 lodged a report before Police Station Lakhanpur, and the matter was also brought to the notice of the village authorities, including the Sarpanch and Panchs, who advised the petitioner to refrain from undertaking construction over the disputed land. It is further 12 submitted that the answering respondent thereafter approached the Tahsildar, Lakhanpur, by submitting a detailed representation along with relevant documents. Upon consideration of the complaint and the material placed on record, the Tahsildar, in Revenue Case No. A-70/2019-20, passed the order dated 16.10.2019 directing the petitioner to stop construction and to appear before the authority to explain under what authority he had commenced construction on the land belonging to Respondent No. 6. It is thus contended that the impugned order is not a final adjudication but merely a temporary prohibitory direction issued to maintain status quo pending inquiry. Learned counsel vehemently refutes the contention of the petitioner regarding lack of jurisdiction and submits that although ordinarily the power to grant injunction lies with the competent civil court, the revenue authorities, under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, are empowered to pass interim or temporary orders to prevent breach of peace and to maintain status quo in matters relating to land disputes, including cases of encroachment and demarcation. The order dated 16.10.2019 has been passed in exercise of such statutory powers, and therefore, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal. It is further submitted that the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is misconceived. The order dated 16.10.2019 itself directs the petitioner to appear before the Tahsildar on 08.11.2019 and to submit his reply. Thus, the impugned order is in the nature of a 13 show-cause notice coupled with a temporary restraint, issued to prevent further illegal construction during the pendency of proceedings. Such interim measures are permissible in law and do not amount to denial of opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the complaint of Respondent No. 6, a fresh demarcation was conducted on 31.10.2019 by the concerned Patwari in the presence of the parties, including the petitioner, who has also signed the demarcation report. The said report clearly establishes that the petitioner has undertaken illegal construction over the land belonging to Respondent No. 6. In view of such conclusive findings, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to dispute the factual position or challenge the proceedings initiated before the revenue authorities. It is also contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The petitioner has failed to avail such remedy and has directly approached this Court without demonstrating any exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has made reckless and unsubstantiated allegations regarding manipulation of revenue records and collusion with officials, which are baseless and have been raised only to divert attention from his own illegal acts of 14 encroachment. No credible material has been placed on record to substantiate such allegations. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 has been passed lawfully, within jurisdiction, and in furtherance of maintaining status quo pending adjudication of the dispute. The petitioner, having encroached upon the land of Respondent No. 6 and having suppressed material facts, is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the present writ petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings and material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the controversy involved in the present writ petition. 6. At the outset, it is evident that the dispute between the parties arises out of competing claims with regard to land and the legality of construction allegedly being raised thereon. The petitioner asserts his ownership and possession over certain khasra numbers and challenges the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Tahsildar, Lakhanpur, whereby construction activities have been restrained. On the other hand, the contesting respondent disputes the petitioner’s claim and asserts his own rights over the land in question, while supporting the action taken by the revenue authorities. 15 7. From the pleadings, it is also apparent that serious factual disputes exist between the parties, inter alia, relating to title, possession, demarcation of land, correctness of revenue records, and alleged encroachment. Both sides have relied upon separate demarcation reports and have levelled allegations against each other regarding manipulation of records and illegal interference with land. Such questions, by their very nature, require appreciation of evidence and detailed factual adjudication, which is not ordinarily undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. This Court further notices that the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 has been passed in the backdrop of a complaint and forms part of proceedings before the competent revenue authority. The said proceedings, as it appears, are not yet concluded, and the petitioner has already participated in the same by submitting his reply. The statutory framework governing such matters provides a complete mechanism for adjudication, including remedies of appeal and revision, where all questions of fact and law can be appropriately examined. 9. In the matter of Tarachandra vs. Bhawarlal and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2902, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “20. In Jitendra Singh (supra) this Court observed that if there is any dispute 16 with respect to the title, more particularly when the mutation entry is sought on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right will have to approach the appropriate Civil Court/Revenue Court and get his rights adjudicated. However, in our view, this cannot be taken as a law proscribing mutation based on a will particularly where the legal heirs of the tenure holder raise no dispute. 21. In the present case, none of the legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder raised a dispute regarding the will. The will is a registered document. The objection, if any, is from the first respondent who claims himself to be in occupation of a particular piece of land held by the deceased tenure holder. Moreover, the claim of first respondent is based on an agreement for sale, and possession thereunder. Admittedly, the same is not a registered document and there appears to be no decree of specific performance in his favour thus far. In such circumstances, if the Tehsildar and other revenue authorities had allowed mutation on the basis of the will by making it subject to regular civil proceedings, we do not find any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the mutation order as may warrant interference in exercise of powers 17 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 10. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Bharat Kunwar and Others v. Mangilal Others, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine MP 609, has held as under “6. It is a settled law that the orders passed by the Revenue Authority are not binding on Civil Court. It is also a settled law that Revenue Court cannot decide the title of the property. When the Civil Suit is pending, all the issues raised in this petition, can be decided before the Civil Court. It has been informed that the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., therefore, once the Civil Suit has been filed, the petitioners are not required to challenge the order passed of Revenue Court in the Writ Court by way of writ petition, hence, petition is dismissed.” 11. Insofar as the grievances raised by the petitioner regarding alleged irregularities, manipulation of revenue records, and inaction on complaints submitted before higher authorities are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that such issues are also matters which can be effectively addressed by the competent authorities in accordance with law, upon proper inquiry and verification of records. 18 12. It is a well-settled principle that where disputed questions of fact are involved, and where an effective alternative remedy is available under the statute, the writ jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised with restraint. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not intended to supplant statutory procedures, particularly in matters requiring detailed fact-finding. 13. In the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him under the relevant statutory provisions. At the same time, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the concerned authority to consider and decide the pending proceedings/complaints, if any, in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue such remedies as are available to him under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, or any other appropriate law, including raising all permissible grounds before the competent authority/Court. (ii) The concerned revenue authority, before whom the proceedings arising out of the order dated 16.10.2019 are pending, is directed to consider and decide the same 19 expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all affected parties. (iii) Insofar as the complaints/allegations made by the petitioner before the higher authorities are concerned, the competent authority shall also examine the same and take appropriate action, if so warranted, in accordance with law. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are left open to be adjudicated by the competent authority. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE