1 2026:CGHC:26642 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1282 of 2020 1 - Punitram Patel (Died) Through Lrs. 1.(a) - Devkumari Patel W/o Late Punitram Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o Village And Post- Rajasewaiya Khurd, Tehsil And P.S. - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 1.(b) - Gajanand Patel S/o Late Punitram Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post- Rajasewaiya Khurd, Tehsil And P.S. - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 1.(c) - Rupesh Patel S/o Late Punitram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Post- Rajasewaiya Khurd, Tehsil And P.S. - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 1.(d) - Surekha Choudhary D/o Late Punitram Patel Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post- Rajasewaiya Khurd, Tehsil And P.S. - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 1.(e) - Dhaneshwari Patel D/o Late Punitram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post- Rajasewaiya Khurd, Tehsil And P.S. - Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mahasamund , Revenue And Civil District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate And Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora Revenue And Civil District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tehsildar Pithora Revenue And Civil District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sheikh Murad S/o Ibrahim Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Rajasewaiya (Tappa), Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ghulam Mohammad S/o Ibrahim Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Rajasewaiya (Tappa) , Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mohammad Islam S/o Ibrahim Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Rajasewaiya (Tappa), Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioners : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondents/State No.1 to 3 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, G.A. For Respondent No.4 to 6 : Mr. Z.A. Lohani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/06/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (s), by quashing the entire proceeding in (Annexure P/1 & P/2) passed in Revenue Case No. 08/A-68/2019-20, (Sheikh Murad & Others Vs. Punitram Patel). 3 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that original petitioner Punit Ram Patel (since deceased) has purchased part of land bearing Kh. No.799 measuring 2240 sq.ft. by two different documents from Laxmi Narayan Agrawal and Sarju Tiwari and thereafter has started reconstruction of Kachha house on the land bearing Kh.No.799. At the time of raising construction, respondents No.4 to 6 have raised an objection on the ground that land on which petitioner is raising construction is a land which is being used as approach road to the graveyard (Kabaristan). Based on that application, Tahsildar has registered a revenue case and issued notice to petitioner. Petitioner submitted reply making specific pleading therein that part of land of Khasara No. 799 has been purchased by him from Laxmi Narayan Agrawal and Sarju Tiwari and it is also pleaded that land, which is subject matter of dispute was initially possessed by Ramzan Bi. with one Kachha house that she transferred the said land with superstructure to Laxminarayan Agrawal and Sarju Tiwari in the year 2015 by executing documents in the form of sale deed. Tahsildar upon deciding the application submitted by respondents No.4 to 6 along with reply submitted by petitioner herein has rejected the claim of respondents No.4 to 6 observing that in the facts of the case and the material available it is appearing that part of the land bearing Kh. No.799 is not being used as approach road to reach graveyard but graveyard is directly connected to the main road. This finding recorded 4 by Tahsildar is not put to challenge by respondents No.4 to 6. He contended that when once the Tahsildar came to conclusion that initially the land bearing Kh. No.799 was possessed by one Ramzan Bi. and she has transferred the same by registered sale deed dated 22.05.2015 to Laxminarayan Agrawal and Sarju Tiwari then Tahsildar ought not to have passed the order injuncting petitioner from raising construction over the private land more so when persons purchased the land from Laxminarayan Agrawal and Sarju Tiwari have not raised any objection or made any application. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 submits that Tahsildar had considered that petitioner is having no right to raise any construction on the part of the land bearing Kh. No.799, he however, do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the finding recorded by the Tahsildar in its order dated 07.03.2020 of dismissing the application filed by respondent No.4 to 6 is not put to challenge before higher authorities or Court. 4. Learned State counsel supports the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar and submits that it does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and also perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with covering memo i.e. the sale deed executed by Ramzan Bi in favour of Laxmi Narayan Agrawal and Sarju Tiwari would show that it is executed along with the ownership land bearing Kh. No.800/1. Persons named in registered sale deed i.e. Laxmi Narayan Agrawal and Sarju Tiwari has not raised any objection on the construction raised by petitioner, over the part of 5 land bearing Kh. No.799 but objection is raised by respondents No.4 to 6. When once, the claim of respondents No.4 to 6 has been rejected by Tahsildar, whether the Tahsildar could have passed order injuncting petitioner not to raise further construction on the part of the land bearing Kh. No.799 is question which is to be considered by this Court. 7. The issue with regard to jurisdiction of the revenue Court to grant injunction came up for consideration before Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Maya Lalchandani (Mrs) and Others Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors., reported in 2009 (3) MPLJ 660, wherein the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh taking note of the provision under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code has observed thus :- “4. After going through the order passed by the learned President, Board of Revenue and taking into consideration the legal provisions, we are of the opinion that the directions issued in paragraph 7 of the order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be allowed to stand. Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code talks of the inherent powers of the Revenue Authorities while Section 43 talks of applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is to be seen from Section 32 that nothing in the Land Revenue Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Section 43 simply provides that unless otherwise expressly provided in the Code, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure shall, so far as may be, followed in all proceedings under the Code. Section 43 6 in no case would authorize a Revenue Authority to grant an injunction. Section 43 simply provides that the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure so far as may be followed in all proceedings under the Code. It is also to be seen from the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure that an injunction can be granted only by civil Court and by none else. Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code only talks of the inherent powers of the Revenue Courts where they are required to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The powers under Section 32 can be exercised within the Code itself and not beyond the Code. If the Revenue Authority does not have the power to grant injunction then the Board of Revenue also could not grant injunction.” 8. In the aforementioned decision, Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that power under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code can be exercised within the Code itself and not beyond the Code and have further held that revenue authority does not have power to grant injunction. Relying upon the decision in case of Maya Lalchandani (supra) Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Baisahu Ram (Died), Through LRs.: Vs. Smt. Ganga Devi & Ors. In WP(Art.227) No.771 of 2013, decided on 24.07.2017 has observed thus : “3. Order to grant injunction is surely vested in the jurisdictional civil court, revenue courts cannot grant order of injunction. Therefore, the order passed by the revenue authority granting temporary injunction restraining construction following the principle of law laid down in the matter of Maya Lalchandani (supra), is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 7 Therefore, the order impugned dated 29-5-2013 passed by the Tahsildar, Surajpur in Revenue Case No.309/Ba-121/2012-13 is hereby quashed. However, respondent No.1 is at liberty to initiate proceeding before the jurisdictional civil court in accordance with law.” 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case and further considering the law laid down by Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Baisahu Ram (supra) I am of the considered view that order passed by Tahsildar granting injunction against petitioner restraining him not to raise any construction over the land bearing Kh. No.799 is without jurisdiction, therefore, order dated 07.03.2020 to the extent granting injunction is set-aside. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated here- in-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram