1 CGHC010409112025 2026:CGHC:36697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5043 of 2025 1 - Hansraj Peswani S/o Late Gorvo @ Gorbumal Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Kharsiya, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, C.G., Through Power Off Attorney- Avinash Peswani, Aged About 33 Years, S/o Shri Suresh Peswani, R/o Sheela Park Apartment, Rajkishore Nagar Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, C.G. Mo. No. 7489999940. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Additional Tahsildar Sakri, District Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Smt. Sangeeta Mishra W/o B. N. Mishra Aged About 56 Years R/o 1/691, Narmada Nagar Chowk Mangla Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - Rohit Mishra S/o B. N. Mishra Aged About 31 Years R/o 1/691, Narmada Nagar Chowk Mangla Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 6 - Rohan Mishra S/o B. N. Mishra Aged About 29 Years R/o 1/691, Narmada Nagar Chowk Mangla Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sourav Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA. For Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 : Shri Siddhant Kumar Das, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.25 16:00:56 +0530 2 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 12.06.2025 & order dated 10.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 in revenue case no. 202506075500016/A-6/2024-2025 parties "Sangeeta, Rohit, Rohan Mishra Vs. Smt. Rashmi Sao" (Annexure-P/1), is in interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Instant matter relates to the land bearing Khasra No. 448/31 (448/32), admeasuring 5,400 sq. ft., being diverted land comprised in Sheet No. 15, Plot No. 359, situated at Village Ameri, P.H. No. 43, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the “questioned land”). Smt. Rashmi Sao instituted Civil Suit No. 109-A/2009 before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the questioned land. In the said suit, she claimed to have purchased the questioned land from one Totaram. The petitioner disputed her claim of title and alleged that Totaram himself was neither the owner nor the title-holder of the questioned land. The petitioner, in the aforesaid civil suit, preferred a counter-claim seeking declaration of his title and permanent injunction, specifically contending that Totaram had no right, title or interest in the questioned land and, therefore, could not have transferred any valid title in favour of Smt. Rashmi Sao. On 14.02.2017, the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur, passed an ex-parte judgment and decree in favour of Smt. Rashmi Sao. Upon acquiring knowledge of the said ex-parte judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came to be dismissed 3 for want of prosecution on 15.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2021. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2021, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner and his brother challenged the order dated 16.10.2024 by filing W.P.(227) No. 1197/2024 before this Court. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and his brother preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11135/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid SLP, issued notice to Smt. Rashmi Sao and other respondents, and on 28.04.2026 finally dismissed the said SLP. On 30.04.2025, the petitioner intimated the pendency of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Takhatpur, as well as respondent No. 3, and requested that transfer of the questioned land be prohibited during the pendency of the proceedings. Pursuant thereto, a banning remark was recorded in the diversion Khasra of the questioned land by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Takhatpur, and the said remark was also incorporated in the Khasra Panchsala by respondent No. 3. Despite the aforesaid circumstances and the pendency of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 07.04.2025 Smt. Rashmi Sao executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in respect of the questioned land. On 09.04.2025, respondent No. 3 received information from the Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur, regarding mutation of the questioned land in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. However, on 4 02.05.2025, respondent No. 3 refused to mutate the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the revenue records, specifically in view of the pendency of the aforesaid SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, on 06.06.2025, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submitted an application before respondent No. 3 seeking mutation of the questioned land under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. On the basis of the said application, the matter was transferred to the E-Court for adjudication. On 12.06.2025, respondent No. 3 registered Revenue Case No. 202506075500016/A- 6/2024-2025, titled “Sangeeta, Rohit, Rohan Mishra Vs. Smt. Rashmi Sao”, and issued notices to the concerned parties. According to the petitioner, the initiation of the mutation proceedings was contrary to the earlier order dated 02.05.2025 and was also in violation of Section 51(1)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. On 08.08.2025, respondent No. 3 considered the objection raised by the petitioner and stayed the revenue proceedings until the decision of the SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, subsequently, on 10.09.2025, the said stay order was vacated without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing, which, according to the petitioner, is violative of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, on 22.08.2025, respondent No. 3 passed an order in the aforesaid revenue proceedings issuing Ishtehar and Notice. Upon subsequently acquiring knowledge of the issuance of the Ishtehar through a separate revenue order, the petitioner raised an objection before respondent No. 3. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 10.09.2025, wherein it was stated/concluded that the issuance of the Ishtehar was attributable to an error on the part of the Reader. The petitioner submits that 5 the subsequent revenue proceedings, including the initiation and continuation of the mutation case and vacation of the stay, have been undertaken despite the pendency of the dispute before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and despite the earlier revenue order refusing mutation on account of such pendency. Grievance of the petitioner is, therefore, principally against the continuation of the mutation/revenue proceedings concerning the questioned land during the pendency of the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as against the alleged violation of the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in the course of such proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Revenue case no. 202506075500016/A- 6/2024-2025 parties "Sangeeta, Rohit, Rohan Mishra Vs. Smt. Rashmi Sao" (Annexure-P/1) wherein registered the revenue case is contrary from Section 51(1)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Land revenue code, thus liable to be quashed. He submits that the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure-P/1) failed to provide the opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner, which is the violation of the principle of the natural justice, thus liable to be quashed. As per the order dated 02.05.2025 respondent no. 3 refused mutation of the questioned land in the name of the respondent no. 4 to 6 in the revenue record, thereafter respondent no. 3 have no jurisdiction to entertain the mutation application preferred by the respondent no. 4 to 6 without obtaining the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed which does not call for any interference by this Court. 6 5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 submits that the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, Hansraj Peswani and another, challenging the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Additional Tehsildar, Sakri, District Bilaspur (Respondent No. 3) regarding registration of a revenue case, as well as the order dated 10.09.2025 whereby the interim stay was vacated by Respondent No. 3. The underlying dispute pertains to a parcel of diverted land bearing Khasra No. 448/31 and 448/32, admeasuring 0.12 Acre, situated in Village Ameri, Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur. The dispute originally arose between Smt. Rashmi Sao and the Petitioner in Civil Suit No. 109-A/2009 before the Court of Learned Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur. He submits that the suit was decreed in favor of Smt. Rashmi Sao on 14.02.2017. The Petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.11.2017. The Petitioner's subsequent application under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. was dismissed on 02.11.2021. The Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the dismissal was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur on 16.10.2024. Writ Petition (227) No. 1197/2024 preferred by the Petitioner before this Hon'ble High Court was dismissed on 06.01.2025. The Special Leave Petition bearing SLP (C) No. 11135/2025 filed by the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the High Court's order dated 06.01.2025 was dismissed on 28.04.2026. Hence, Respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6 are bonafide purchasers of the subject land from the registered owner, Smt. Rashmi Sao vide sale deed dated 07.04.2025. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7 7. From the perusal of documents annexed with the petition, it appears that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Additional Tehsildar, Sakri, District Bilaspur regarding registration of a revenue case filed by private respondents herein for mutation. It further appears that the Additional Tehsildar, Sakri, on 08.08.2025 being conscious of the fact that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted stay in the matter till the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the Court that in the same matter on 22.08.2025, notice & Ishtehar was issued despite there being stay. The said error was attributable to the Reader and he was also issued show cause notice. The stay was vacated vide order dated 10.09.2025 by the Additional Tehsildar, Sakri which is challenged by the petitioner alleging it to be passed behind the back of the petitioner. 8. However, the principal foundation of the petitioner's challenge was the pendency of SLP (C) No.11135/2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petition has subsequently been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.04.2026. Thus, the very circumstance on which the petitioner primarily relies to assail the continuation of the mutation proceedings no longer survives. 9. The dispute originated from Civil Suit No. 109-A/2009 instituted by Smt. Rashmi Sao before the Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the subject land, in which the petitioner disputed her title and asserted his own claim. The said suit was decreed ex parte in favour of Smt. Rashmi Sao on 14.02.2017. Upon acquiring knowledge of the decree, the petitioner preferred an application 8 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree; however, the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15.11.2017. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the proceedings, which was also dismissed on 02.11.2021. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of miscellaneous appeal before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, but the appeal was dismissed on 16.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner and his brother approached this Court by filing W.P.(227) No.1197/2024, challenging the appellate order, but the said writ petition was dismissed on 06.01.2025. Still aggrieved, they approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No.11135/2025, wherein notice was issued; however, the Special Leave Petition was ultimately dismissed on 28.04.2026. Thus, the petitioner has remained unsuccessful in obtaining any relief against the original decree or the subsequent orders passed in the proceedings arising therefrom, having failed before the trial court, the appellate court, this Court and, ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground is made out for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the impugned orders as the petitioner's challenge to the proceedings has failed at every subsequent stage, including before this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11.Consequently, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the order dated 12.06.2025 or the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9 13.Needless to observe, the revenue authority shall proceed with the mutation proceedings strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made herein, subject to the rights and remedies available to the parties in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash