CGHC010215642026 2026:CGHC:36488-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 767 of 2026 1 - Smt. Satto D/o Boti W/o Kedarnath Aged About 39 Years Caste Muriya R/o Village Bade Dharaur Teh. Lohandiguda District Bastar Chhattisgarh 2 - Keshru S/o Gutodi Aged About 54 Years 3 - Itwari D/o Gutodi Aged About 44 Years Appellants 2 and 3 are R/o Village Kumhaarsadra, Tah. Baastanar District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Pardeshi S/o Gutodi Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Mamadpal Tah. Darbha District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Sukru S/o Pandu Aged About 48 Years 6 - Sukhram S/o Pandu Aged About 42 Years 7 - Sukman S/o Late Lachin Aged About 32 Years 8 - Ularam S/o Late Lachin Aged About 33 Years Appellants 2 to 8 All Caste Raut Appellants- 5 to 8 are R/o Village Rajur, Tah. Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - The Add. Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - The S. D. O. (Rev.) Tah. Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Narendra S/o Late Sonaruram Caste Muria, R/o Village Rajur Tah.Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Shri Vikash A Shrivastava, Advocate Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.22 11:39:54 +0530 WA767 of 2026 2 For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA For Respondent-5 : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.08.2026 Heard Shri Vikash A Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the State and Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for respondent-5 1. Present Writ Appeal has been filed with the following prayer: “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and set-aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WPC No.1242/2026 and also set aside/quash the orders dated 17.02.2022 and 26.08.2021 passed by res.no.03 and 04 respectively and other related proceedings thereof is illegal, bad and quash the same in the interest of justice” 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2026 (Annexure A1) passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1242/2022, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the proceedings initiated under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land WA767 of 2026 3 Revenue Code are still pending before the competent authority and that the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners have already been considered and rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tokapal, District Bastar, with an observation that the said objections would be examined in detail at the stage of final hearing. The appellants respectfully submit that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the true nature and effect of the objections raised by the petitioners therein and erroneously treated the writ petition as premature, without examining whether the rejection of the preliminary objection by the competent authority was legally sustainable. Merely keeping the issues open for consideration at the final stage does not, by itself, validate an order which may suffer from jurisdictional error, non-consideration of relevant material, violation of principles of natural justice, or failure to exercise statutory jurisdiction. The appellant, therefore, submits that the legality and validity of the preliminary order ought to have been examined at the threshold, particularly where continuation of the Section 170-B proceedings may cause prejudice to the rights and interests of the petitioners. The present writ appeal is accordingly preferred under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh (Appeal to the Division Bench) Act, 2006, seeking reconsideration of the issues which, according to the appellants, have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and praying that the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 be set aside and appropriate relief be granted in accordance with law. WA767 of 2026 4 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.5 preferred an application under Section 170-B of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Tokapal, alleging that the land bearing Khasra No.1653, admeasuring 1.850 hectares, corresponding to old Khasra No.194/1, admeasuring 6.22 acres, originally belonged to his ancestor Sonadhar S/o Dashrat. It was alleged that in the year 1967, Chandan S/o Somaru, by impersonating himself as a member of a Scheduled Tribe, purchased the said land from Sonadhar and thereafter, got his name mutated in the revenue records. Upon the application being registered, notices were issued to the present appellants, who appeared before the authority and raised a preliminary objection, principally contending that the issue had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings initiated by Mahadev S/o Sonadhar, ancestor of respondent No.5, under Section 170-B of the Code. The appellants' aforesaid objection was considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who, by order dated 26.08.2021, rejected the preliminary objection and directed the appellants to produce documents relating to their claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The appellants, thereafter, preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Jagdalpur, which was dismissed by order dated 17.02.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1242 of 2022. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 27.04.2026, declined to interfere, observing that the preliminary objections raised by the appellants had already been considered and rejected by the competent authority, while specifically observing that such objections WA767 of 2026 5 would be examined in detail at the stage of final hearing of the proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found the writ petition to be premature and dismissed the same vide order dated 27.04.2026. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in not adjudicating the objection of res judicata raised by the appellants, as the very same land and the same subject matter had already been the subject matter of proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code initiated by Mahadev S/o Sonadhar, wherein the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of the ancestor of respondent No.5 was set aside by the appellate authority and the subsequent appeal and revision preferred by Mahadev were also dismissed. It is, therefore, contended that the subsequent proceedings at the instance of respondent No.5 are barred by the principle of res judicata and ought not to have been permitted to proceed. Learned counsel further submits that the revenue authorities failed to properly appreciate the earlier orders and the effect thereof. It is further argued that the sale transaction in question took place as far back as in the year 1967 and the original vendor himself did not initiate any proceedings for restoration of the land. It is, therefore, submitted that the orders dated 26.08.2021 and 17.02.2022, as well as the order of the learned Single Judge, deserve to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the WA767 of 2026 6 appellants and would submit that the prayer of the appellants is misconceived and untenable in law, and therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court. The State supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code are still pending adjudication before the competent revenue authority and no final order has yet been passed therein. The preliminary objection raised by the appellants has already been considered at the preliminary stage and has not been finally foreclosed; rather, the competent authority has specifically observed that the said objection would be considered in detail at the stage of final hearing. 6. It is further submitted that the appellants cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court at an interlocutory stage so as to seek adjudication of disputed questions which are yet to be considered by the statutory authority. The appellants have an efficacious remedy of placing all their objections and documents before the competent authority, and, if ultimately aggrieved by the final order, to avail the remedies available to them in law. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ appeal is premature and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the plea of res judicata raised by the appellants is misconceived, as the earlier proceedings relied upon by them were initiated by Mahadev, whereas the present proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.5 on the basis of his claim in respect of the subject land. It is further WA767 of 2026 7 submitted that the proceedings under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code are still pending and the appellants would have full opportunity to raise all their objections, including the plea of res judicata before the competent authority. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, rightly declined to interfere at this stage, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The principal grievance of the appellants is that their objection founded upon the principle of res judicata has not been accepted by the revenue authorities. However, the record itself demonstrates that the said objection was specifically raised before the Sub-Divisional Officer and was considered while passing the order dated 26.08.2021. The appellants, thereafter, challenged the said order before the revisionary authority, which also declined to interfere. 10. More importantly, the learned Single Judge has not adjudicated the question of res judicata against the appellants on merits. On the contrary, the learned Single Judge has noticed that the objection raised by the appellants has already been considered and rejected at that stage, with a specific observation that the said objection would be examined in detail at the stage of final hearing of the proceedings instituted under Section 170- B of the Code. Thus, the substantive issue sought to be raised by the appellants remains open for consideration before the competent statutory authority. WA767 of 2026 8 11. It is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not to be invoked to interfere with proceedings at an interlocutory or premature stage, particularly when the competent statutory authority is yet to finally adjudicate the dispute. In the present case, the proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code are still pending and the objection raised by the appellants has expressly been left open for consideration at the stage of final hearing. Therefore, at this stage, no interference is warranted by this Court. 12. In the present case, the same principle applies with greater force. The proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code have not culminated in a final adjudication. The objection regarding res judicata, which, according to the appellants goes to the root of the proceedings, has not been finally adjudicated against them. Rather, the learned Single Judge has expressly left the said issue open for consideration at the appropriate stage. Therefore, at this stage, there is no occasion for this Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, to undertake an adjudication upon the merits of the said objection or to pre-empt the statutory authority. 13. It is also trite that the question whether the subsequent proceedings are barred by res judicata would necessarily require examination of the earlier proceedings, the parties thereto, the issues directly and substantially in issue, the nature and effect of the orders passed therein and the stage at which the earlier proceedings attained finality. Such an exercise, in the facts of the present case, is appropriately to be undertaken by the competent authority at the stage of final hearing, WA767 of 2026 9 particularly, when the said authority has already reserved consideration of the objection for that stage. 14. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in declining to interfere with the pending proceedings at this stage. The appellants are at liberty to take recourse to the remedies available to them in accordance with law and to place all their objections, including the objection founded on res judicata, along with the relevant material, before the competent authority. Needless to observe, the competent authority shall consider all such objections independently and in accordance with law while finally adjudicating the proceedings under Section 170-B of the Code. 15. We, therefore, find no merit in the present writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the objection based on res judicata or on the substantive rights of the parties. All such issues are left open to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma