1 CGHC010348662023 2026:CGHC:36411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4681 of 2023 1 - Tejbai D/o Late Ramlal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sajapali, Tahsil, Chhura, District Grariyaband Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rukmani, D/o Late Ramlal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sajapali, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Upper Collector, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub Division Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.4681 7 - Kuleshwar Sahu, S/o Late Asharam Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Ghonch, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 8 - Leelawati Bai, W/o Shri Kuleshwar Sahu, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Ghonch, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 9 - Mano Bai, Wd/o Late Asharam Sahu, Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Ghonch, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For the Petitioner :Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For the State For Respondent Nos.7 to 9 : : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, PL Mr. Shahil Singh, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Muskaan Fatwani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. This writ petition has been filed with following reliefs: “10. Relief(s) Sought: 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned Order Dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. 202009120800419 B/121 Year 2019-20 by Uppar Collector, Mahasamund and accordingly declare the sale deeds dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) and 04.11.2009 (Annexure P-7) as null and void, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Collector, Mahasamund to decide the transaction dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) and 04.11.2009 (Annexure P-7) in the light of provision of Section 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and further respondent authorities be directed to mutate the name of petitioners in the revenue records of the land in question. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Courtmay kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P- 3 1) by which respondent No.3/Upper Collector, Mahasamund has rejected the application preferred by the petitioners and remitted the matter to the concerned Tahsildar with a direction to take appropriate steps in respect of order dated 09.01.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, in Civil Suit No. 08-A/2019 (Kuleshwar Sahu and Others v. Shivnarayan and Another). The land in question was earlier held and possessed by the ancestors of the petitioners, namely, Chamru and Ramlal. Without obtaining the requisite permission of the Collector, Shivkumari alienated the land in question in contravention of Section 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Accordingly, sale deeds dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) and 04.11.2009 (Annexure P-7) were executed in favour of Ashara Sahu and Smt. Leelawati respectively. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Kotwari land has been alienated by respondent Nos. 7 to 9 and, therefore, the petitioners seek cancellation of the aforesaid sale deeds and mutation of their names in the revenue records. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that no title can be claimed on the basis of Kotwari land, as has already been held by the Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2026 in W.P.(C) No.1571/2020 and W.P.(C) No.1569/2020. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 9 submits that the petitioners have no right, title or interest over the land in question and, therefore, they are not entitled to seek cancellation 4 of the registered sale deeds executed, if any, or mutation of their names in the revenue records. The dispute raised by the petitioners involves disputed questions of fact and title, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is quite vivid that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1571/2020 and W.P.(C) No.1569/2020, has already held that a Kotwar cannot claim title over the Kotwari land. Where any sale deed has been executed in respect of Kotwari land and the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of such sale deed, the appropriate remedy is to institute an appropriate suit before the competent Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent Court in accordance with law. CC as per rules. Sd/- SSD (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.