1 CGHC010299172026 2026:CGHC:34063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4029 of 2026 1 - Mahabir Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Shri Jagat Ram Agrawal Aged About 65 Years R/o Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, P.S. And Tehsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. 5 - Tehsildar Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. 6 - Rajesh Sarthi S/o Shri Ram Prasad Sarthi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Charkhapara, Tehsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. 7 - Nandu Sarthi S/o Shri Ram Prasad Sarthi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Charkhapara, Tehsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 8 - Lalbabu S/o Shri Tikaram R/o Village- Karmitikra, Tehsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Learned SDO (R) Dharamjaigarh, and to further pass an order by remanding the matter to the Court of learned SDO (R) Dharamjaigarh to decide afresh on merits, in accordance with law. 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 the petitioner assails the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), 3 Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. It is submitted that the authority below has committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the petitioner's application solely on the ground that the petitioner is not a party to the registered sale deed in question and, therefore, is not entitled to challenge its validity. It is contended that the competent authority has failed to appreciate the material placed on record in its proper perspective and has rejected the petitioner's claim without considering the allegations raised by him. It is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to law, and suffers from non-application of mind, thereby warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is legal, proper and well- reasoned, having been passed after due consideration of the relevant facts and applicable provisions of law. It is further contended that the petitioner, admittedly, is not an executant or a party to the registered sale deed and, therefore, has no legal right to seek its cancellation or challenge its validity before the revenue authorities. It is thus prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 4 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record with due care. 5. Upon giving anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on a careful examination of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), does not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the registered sale deed sought to be questioned. The competent authority has recorded a categorical finding that no material has been produced by the petitioner to prima facie establish that the registered sale deed was obtained by practising fraud, misrepresentation or any other illegality. In the absence of any such material, the authority below was fully justified in declining the relief sought by the petitioner. Furthermore, the validity or legality of a registered sale deed, particularly when it involves disputed questions of fact relating to title, execution or allegations of fraud, cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such issues fall within the exclusive domain of the competent civil court, where evidence can be adduced and adjudicated upon in accordance with law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the execution or validity of the registered sale deed, it is always open to him to 5 avail the appropriate remedy by instituting a properly constituted civil suit seeking declaration, cancellation of the sale deed, or any other consequential relief as may be available under law. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional error, perversity, arbitrariness or illegality is discernible in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. 7. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat