1 CGHC010337012023 2026:CGHC:37667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4485 of 2023 1 - Rajendra Kumar Nag S/o Late Sukhaduram Nag Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Kodabhata, Gram Panchayat Kodabhata, P.S. Post Office And Tehsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Dakeshwar Kumar Nag S/o Rajendra Kumar Nag Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kodabhata, Gram Panchayat Kodabhata, P.S. Post Office And Tehsil Kanker, District North Baster Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Praveen Nag S/o Rajendra Kumar Nag Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kodabhata, Gram Panchayat Kodabhata, P.S. Post Office And Tehsil Kanker, District North Baster Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - President Chhattisgarh State Women Commission, Opposite Office Of Chief Election Commission, Shastri Chowk, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Bhagwali Nag W/o Govind Nag Aged About 55 Years R/o Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Bhagwali Nag, C/o Lakhan Lal Sahu, Village Tarri, Post Office Gobra Nawapara, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachwaha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 25/8/23 (Annexure P-9) in the interest of justice. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case and of land for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners and respondent No. 3 belong to the same family. Certain members of the family 3 instituted a civil suit seeking partition of the suit property amongst the family members, which came to be decreed by the learned Trial Court. Pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, partition proceedings were undertaken before the Tahsildar, Kanker. Separate proceedings were conducted in respect of the properties situated at Village Bardebhata and Village Kodabhata. In respect of the property situated at Village Bardebhata, the Tahsildar, Kanker, vide order dated 31.03.2022, directed partition of the suit property. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Kanker, petitioner No. 1 preferred two separate appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kanker, which came to be dismissed vide orders dated 02.12.2022. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 preferred two separate second appeals before the Commissioner, Bastar Division, challenging the orders passed by the SDO (Revenue), Kanker. The Commissioner, Bastar Division, vide order dated 13.01.2023, stayed the effect and operation of the orders passed by the SDO (Revenue), and the said second appeals are stated to be pending consideration. In the meantime, respondent No. 3, who is the wife of the brother of petitioner No. 1, namely Govind, submitted a complaint dated 11.07.2023 before the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women, alleging that the petitioners were abusing her and obstructing her access to the suit property which, according to her, had fallen to her share. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No. 2 registered a case on 09.08.2023. 4 The petitioners were thereafter informed telephonically about the proceedings and appeared before respondent No. 2 on 25.08.2023. On the said date, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2023, whereby respondent No. 3 was permitted to cultivate the land stated to have fallen to her share and directions were issued restraining interference with the same. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women has passed an order dated 25.08.2023, whereby the petitioners have been restrained from interfering with the property in dispute and the concerned respondent authorities have further been directed to harvest the standing crop/grains from the said property. He submits that, while passing the aforesaid order, the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women has travelled beyond the scope of its statutory powers and jurisdiction and has passed directions which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women is vested with the power and authority to make recommendations in accordance with the provisions of the applicable enactment; however, in the present case, the Commission has virtually granted an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the disputed property. According to him, the power to grant an injunction and 5 adjudicate disputes relating to civil and proprietary rights falls exclusively within the domain and jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court. Thus, the impugned order, being in the nature of an injunction and having been passed in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the Commission, is without authority of law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed by the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women Act. He, therefore, submits that no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law. He further submits that the competent Civil Court has already passed a judgment and decree in respect of the property in question and, therefore, the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women was justified in passing the order dated 25.08.2023 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the requisite powers are vested in the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women under Section 10 of the Act. He further submits that the impugned directions appear to have been issued by the 6 Commission in exercise of and pursuant to the powers conferred upon it under the aforesaid statutory provision. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, having considered the rival submissions advanced at the Bar, and upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly the impugned order dated 25.08.2023, it appears that the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women has exceeded the scope of the powers and jurisdiction vested in it under the relevant statutory provisions. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Commission has restrained the petitioner from interfering with the property in dispute and has further issued directions to the concerned authorities for harvesting the standing crop/grains. Such directions are predominantly in the nature of an injunction and pertain to the adjudication and protection of civil and proprietary rights, which ordinarily fall within the exclusive domain and jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court. The Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women, being vested primarily with recommendatory powers, cannot assume or exercise the jurisdiction exclusively conferred upon a Civil Court or pass an order which, in substance and effect, operates as an injunction in respect of disputed property. The Commission, while exercising its statutory powers, cannot transgress the limits of its jurisdiction and encroach upon the jurisdictional field reserved for the competent Civil Court. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.08.2023, having been 7 passed in excess of the jurisdiction and authority vested in the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Women, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 is hereby set aside. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL