1 CGHC010338292026 2026:CGHC:38190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4459 of 2026 1 - Renu Baghel S/o Late Magru Baghel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Nagarnaar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Hemchand S/o Jono Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Nagarnaar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Kurti Waas S/o Late Mangru Baghel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Nagarnaar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Kurso S/o Late Budhram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Nagarnaar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Laxman S/o Late Sona Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Nagarnaar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 6 - Dhanurjay S/o Late Sonu Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Nagarnaar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 7 - Brajesh Bisai @ Pappu Sethiya S/o Late Madhusudan Bisai Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Nagarnaar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Secretariat, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - The Tahsildar Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - 1st Civil Judge Senior Division Of 1st Additional Judge Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.25 16:39:20 +0530 2 5 - Smt. Padma S/o Late Swami Premanand Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Nagarnaar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocates For State : Mr. Shobhit Misrha, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the show-cause notice dated 18.08.2026 issued by the concerned Civil Court to the Tahsildar, as well as the consequential notices issued by the revenue authorities proposing their dispossession from the subject property. The petitioners have also prayed for protection of their possession over the houses in which they are residing and for quashing of the aforesaid notices, alleging that the same have been issued pursuant to the proceedings in Execution Case No.04/2011 and are affecting their fundamental and constitutional rights and have prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for all relevant records of case pertaining the petitioners' case from the respondents if this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of case. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the show- 3 cause notices issued by respondent No.3 most likely after issuance of show-cause notice of contempt dated 18.8.2026 by respondent No.4 which also needs quashment as affecting the petitioners interest in the subject matter and all these acts comes within the purview of infringement of petitioners' fundamental and constitutional rights and in the facts and circumstances of the case. C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue protecting the petitioners' possession over the subject property i.e. houses in which petitioners are residing along with their respective family members since long decades and in the facts and circumstances of the case. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be in settled possession of the subject land situated at village Nagarnaar, RI Circle Markel, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, and rely upon revenue records, property-tax receipts and other documents in support of their possession. It is pleaded that in Civil Suit No.45- A/2005, a decree dated 31.01.2008 was passed in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.1473, pursuant to which Execution Case No.04/2011 was initiated. The petitioners contend that, in the execution proceedings, the 4 concerned Civil Court issued notices to the Tahsildar and, thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 18.08.2026 was issued under Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, calling upon the Tahsildar to show cause as to why action be not taken against him. It is further pleaded that thereafter notices were issued to the petitioners for their dispossession and police assistance was also extended for the said purpose, giving rise to the present petition. 3. The petitioners further contend that the execution of a decree for possession over immovable property is governed by the procedure prescribed under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the provisions of Section 384 of the BNSS have no application to the circumstances of the present case. According to the petitioners, the action of the revenue authorities in proceeding to dispossess them on the basis of the aforesaid proceedings, without affording them an opportunity to avail the appropriate remedy, has resulted in infringement of their rights and has necessitated their approaching this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that notices have been issued to the petitioners by the concerned Tahsildar alleging illegal possession and occupation of the subject property, pursuant to the order passed by the concerned Civil Court in Execution Case No.04/2011. It is submitted that the said proceedings have been 5 initiated on the basis of the notice issued by the concerned Civil Court to the Tahsildar and that, before taking any coercive step for dispossession, the petitioners are required to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to place their defence and explain their claim over the subject property. Learned counsel further submits that, despite the petitioners being in possession of the property and having a defence available to them, the concerned Tahsildar is proceeding to dispossess them merely on the basis of the order passed by the Civil Court, without considering their stand. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate interim protection may be granted to the petitioners so as to enable them to approach the competent Court and avail the remedy available to them in accordance with law. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the proceedings initiated by the concerned Tahsildar are pursuant to the orders passed by the competent Civil Court in Execution Case No.04/2011 and, therefore, the action of the revenue authorities cannot be said to be without authority of law. It is further submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy before the competent Civil Court and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are residents of a remote village in Nagarnaar, District Bastar, and are not fully conversant with the proceedings 6 initiated against them. It is submitted that an ex parte order/decree is stated to have been passed against the petitioners, of which they had no proper knowledge and, therefore, they are required to obtain the relevant records and documents and take appropriate legal recourse before the competent Court. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks a reasonable period of one month to enable the petitioners to obtain the necessary documents and approach the competent Court, and in the meanwhile, seeks protection against any coercive action or dispossession. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the petitioners seek to avail the remedy available to them before the competent Civil Court in respect of the alleged ex parte decree and the consequential execution proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Court and avail the remedy available to them in accordance with law within a period of one month from today. 9. Till expiry of the aforesaid period of one month, the concerned Tahsildar shall not take any coercive steps for dispossession of the petitioners from the subject property. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute or on the rights and contentions of the parties. The interim 7 protection granted herein shall automatically come to an end on expiry of the aforesaid period of one month. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh