1 CGHC010297422026 2026:CGHC:34367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 992 of 2026 1 - Shradhanand Agrawal S/o Bhola Prasad Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Bhaisa Pasra Near Balodabazar, Dist. Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajnarayan Sahu S/o Sundarlal Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Balodabazar P.H.N. 15, Tehsil- Balodabazar, Dist- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Though- Collector Balodabaza, Dist- Balodabazarbhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate assisted by Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 2 05/08/2026 Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 23/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No. 23A/2022 has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is defendant No.1 in the civil suit filed by respondent No.1 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 3036, admeasuring 0.016 hectare, situated at Village, Tahsil and District Baloda Bazar. It is contended that respondent No.1 claims title over the suit property on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2020 allegedly executed by the erstwhile owners, namely Dharamchand, Karamchand, Suk Kumar, Gulabchand, Madhu Pisran and Tulsiram Stanami, pursuant to which the suit land has been mutated in the name of respondent No.1. 3. It is further submitted that according to the plaint, the petitioner forcibly encroached upon the suit land in the year 2021 and that the alleged encroachment came to the notice of respondent No.1 only after demarcation of the land carried out on 25.02.2022. Thereafter, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 250 of the 3 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, wherein an order directing restoration of possession was passed by the Tahsildar, which has been affirmed up to the Board of Revenue. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 filed the present civil suit seeking declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction, whereupon the petitioner filed a written statement along with a counterclaim asserting title over the suit property by way of adverse possession. 4. He further submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has remained in possession of the suit land for the last 50–55 years and, therefore, has set up a plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession. It is argued that although respondent No.1 claims title under the registered sale deed dated 09.07.2020, the petitioner, being in settled and long-standing possession, is entitled to protection of such possession by way of temporary injunction. It is contended that both the learned trial Court and the appellate Court have erroneously rejected the petitioner's application solely on the ground that he does not possess any documentary evidence of title. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the matter of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) through LRs v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through LRs & Others,(2022) 12 SCC 128 and in the matter of Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs. Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, on advance copy, opposes the submissions and contends that the petitioner is an encroacher, having neither title nor any lawful right over 4 the suit property. It is submitted that an encroacher is not entitled to the equitable relief of temporary injunction. It is further argued that the petitioner has failed before the revenue authorities up to the Board of Revenue and has also been denied interim relief by both the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court. According to respondent No.1, the petitioner's plea of adverse possession has not yet culminated into a perfected title and, therefore, no injunction can be granted in his favour. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is placed upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.09.2018 in Second Appeal No. 730 of 1999. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The controversy involved in the present petition pertains to the grant of temporary injunction in respect of the suit property. The petitioner asserts that he has been in continuous possession of the suit land for more than 50–55 years and has, therefore, raised a counterclaim seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. On the other hand, respondent No.1 claims title under a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2020 and submits that the alleged encroachment by the petitioner came to light only upon demarcation conducted in the year 2022, whereafter the present suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction was instituted. 8. Though the petitioner does not possess any documentary title and claims ownership solely on the basis of adverse possession, his 5 assertion of long and uninterrupted possession extending over 50–55 years cannot be brushed aside at the stage of consideration of an application for temporary injunction. Having regard to the nature of the dispute relating to both title and possession, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as it exists today till the final adjudication of the suit. 9. The learned trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings of the suit expeditiously, preferably within an outer limit of six months from the next date fixed before it. The parties are expected to cooperate with the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the suit property as on today until the final disposal of the suit. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.08.07 17:33:11 +0530