1 CGHC010217252022 2026:CGHC:36438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3013 of 2022 1 - Janki Tekwani W/o Shri Naresh Tekwani Aged About 52 Years R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Commissioner Raipur Division, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Nitin Dahiya S/o Late Manohar Dahiya Aged About 46 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chandrakala D/o Late Manohar Dahiya Aged About 44 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Manju Goyal D/o Late Manohar Dahiya Aged About 42 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.17 19:13:39 +0530 2 7 - Mukesh Dahiya S/o Late Manohar Dahiya Aged About 40 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Sushila Dahiya W/o Late Manohar Dahiya Aged About 67 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Amit Dahiya S/o Late Ashok Dahiya Aged About 49 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Sumati Dahiya D/o Late Ashok Dahiya Aged About 47 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Priya Pawar D/o Late Ashok Dahiya Aged About 45 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12 - Smt. Baby Dahiya W/o Late Ashok Dahiya Aged About 68 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 13 - Ghanshyam Dahiya S/o Late Kapur Chandra Dahiya Aged About 45 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14 - Girish Kumar S/o Late Kailash Chandra Dahiya Aged About 41 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 15 - Vijay Yadu S/o Shri Ram Yadu R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate. For State/Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Amit Nayak, P.L. For Respondents No. 4 to 14 : Mr. Vimal Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 3 14/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) in the interest of justice. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which is deem fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the land way back in the year 1990 through a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1990. Thereafter, in the year 2007 she has moved an application for mutation before the concerned Tahsildar in which the concerned Tahsildar has allowed the application for mutation. Against that the private respondents preferred an appeal before the SDO (Revenue) in which the concerned appellate authority, i.e., the S.D.O. (Revenue) has dismissed the appeal and thereafter, the concerned commissioner has also dismissed the appeal and thereafter, the concerned Board of Revenue has remitted back the matter to the concerned Tahsildar for deciding the same after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that although the concerned authority has passed the impugned order, it has failed to take into consideration the material fact that both the parties are asserting their respective title over the subject land. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 14 submits that the respondents had executed their sale deeds prior to the execution of the petitioner’s sale deed. It is, therefore, contended 4 that the dispute between the parties essentially pertains to the title over the subject land. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there exists a serious dispute between the parties with regard to the title over the subject land. Such a dispute, involving adjudication of the respective rights and title of the parties, cannot appropriately be determined in the present proceedings and is required to be adjudicated upon by a competent Civil Court. The Civil Court is vested with the jurisdiction to determine the title of the parties and, if warranted, to adjudicate upon the validity of the respective sale deeds, including the question as to whether any such sale deed is null and void. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the parties are relegated to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court for resolution of their dispute with regard to title and the validity of the respective sale deeds. Both the parties shall be at liberty to approach the concerned Civil Court in accordance with law. 6. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju