1 CGHC010308642026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1057 of 2026 1 - Sita Ram Daga S/o Late Shri Chandan Mal Daga Aged About 72 Years Resident- Baal Govind Chowk, Ward No. 37, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) At Present- Kamptee Line, Beside Old S.B.I. Bank Main Branch, P.S. Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Om Prakash Daga S/o Late Shri Chandan Mal Daga Aged About 78 Years R/o At Present- Bharkapara, Beside Kamak Talkis, P.S. Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Radheshyam Daga S/o Late Shri Chandan Mal Daga Aged About 70 Years R/o Baal Govind Chowk, Ward No. 37, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Govind Ram Daga S/o Late Shri Chandan Mal Daga Aged About 67 Years R/o Baal Govind Chowk, Ward No. 37, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) At Present Maheshwari Vastralaya, Beside Laxmi Narayan Hotel, Old Ganj Chowk Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.31 12:06:50 +0530 2 “10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 19/01/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by Learned 2, Dongargrah, Rajnandgaon ( व्यवहार Civil Judge Class- न्यायाधी शमहादया वर्ग-2, डोंर्गरर्गढ़स्थान- रजनदर्गव (छ०र्ग०) लोकअदलोत खंडोंपी ठ क्रमक-7) Rajnandgaon C.G. in Civil Suit No. 02A/2014 and Against an impugned order dated 26-07-2018 (Annexure P/2) passed by न्यायालोया नज"लोअधिधीकर ( नज"लो ज$च) महादया रजनदर्गव (छ०र्ग०) in Mutation Case No. ( रजस्व ममलो क्रमक) 365/A-6/Year- 2017-18 (Govind Ram vs Sita Ram, Radheshyam) and Against an impugned order dated 28/01/2021 (Annexure P/3) passed by न्यायालोया नज"लोअधिधीकर ( नज"लो जच) महादया रजनदर्गव (छ०र्ग०) in Mutation Case No. ( रजस्व ममलो क्रमक) 166/A-6/Year- 2019-20 (Omprakash Daga vs Sita Ram). 10.2 This Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner's matter. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and the respondents No.2&3. In the said Civil Suit No.2-A/2014 a compromise was said to have been entered into between the parties on 19.01.2014 and the matter was placed before the Bench No.7, Lok Adalat, Rajnandgaon and the suit has been disposed of under the terms and conditions of the compromise settled at between the parties. According to alleged terms and condition of the said compromise, the plaintiff was declared title holder of the house Plot No.164/4 Area 10.40 Sq.meter and Khasra No.169/4 Area 108.55 Sq.meter situated at Bharkapara, Rajnandgaon. The defendant No.2 was held title holder of the first floor of the house Nazul Sheet Plot No.295/4, Area 20 Sq. meter and plot No.1523/2 Area 1599 Sq. meter situated at Balgovind Chowk, 3 Rajnandgaon. The defendant No.3 was held title holder of the ground floor of the house situated at Balgovind Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Plot No.295/4 and 1523/2. After the said compromise deed dated 19.12.2014 before the Lok Adalat, the respondent No.3 filed an application for mutation before the Nazul Officer, Rajnandgaon for mutation of his name over the property obtained by him through compromise before the Lok Adalat and thereafter the respondent No.1 Omprakash Daga also filed an application for mutation before the said Nazul Officer, Rajnandgaon, for mutation over the property which has been obtained by him. 3. He would further submit that the respondent No.1-Omprakash Daga is the elder brother of the petitioner and other respondents and all of them have jointly purchased the subject property of the house situated situated at Plot No.164/3 and 169/1 at Bharkapara Rajnandgaon through registered sale deed dated 25.02.2002 and they are are residing together in the said house. Similarly, they purchased the land Khasra No.15/23 on 19.07.1978 and constructed a house which was situated at Balgovind Chowk Rajnandgaon from their own income. The petitioner was not the party of their compromise and he was called by the plaintiff Omprakash Daga on 19.01.2014 which was the date when the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat he obtained signature over the settlement deed before the Lok Adalat without informing any terms and conditions of the compromise. Since the plaintiff Omprakash Daga was his elder brother, he under his assurance, signed the documents. After the compromise, without noticing to other parties, the plaintiff Omprakash Daga got his name mutated in the revenue records 4 and now he tried to sale the suit property in which the petitioner is in possession. The petitioner was kept in dark during the entire period and they obtained the signature of the petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about the alleged act of the plaintiff, he made an application for obtaining certified copies of the documents from the suit, but the original record of the suit is not traceable and certified copies could not be supplied to the petitioner. He also made an application under Right to Information Act to the competent authority but result would be the same that the original record is not traceable. He would also submit that the respondent No.1 Omprakash Daga got his name mutated in the revenue records without impleading the petitioner as party and without noticing him. The terms of compromise is not lawful and behind the back the settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and the other defendants and the said compromise and the order dated 19.01.2014 passed by Bench No.7, Lok Adalat, Rajnandgaon, is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner has virtually challenged the compromise arrived at between the parties on 19.01.2014 and the order passed by the Lok Adalat, Rajnandgaon, by which the rights of the parties have been determined on the basis of settlement between them. The petitioner Seeta Ram Daga was also one of the party before the trial court in civil suit as defendant No.1 and his signature is also there in the said docket dated 19.01.2014 submitted before the Lok Adalat, Rajnandgaon. The petitioner could not dispute that he has not signed 5 the Docket Form but he only disputed that his signature has been obtained without any information of compromise between the parties and he signed the same on the influence of his elder brother Omprakash Daga who was plaintiff in the civil suit. The said compromise was arrived at between the parties on 19.01.2014 whereas the petitioner has challenged the said compromise by way of present petition in the year, 2026 which is after about more than 12 years. His submission is that he was not being apprised by the terms and conditions of the compromise and the other parties got their name mutated in the revenue records and now the house which comes under the share of the plaintiff by the said compromise, is now alienating by the plaintiff Omprakash Daga in which the petitioner is in possession. 6. The petitioner has filed the documents of revenue court i.e. Nazul Officer Rajnandgaon which demonstrate that on 01.06.2018 the respondent No.3 Govind Ram Daga filed an application for mutation of his land in the revenue records of the property obtained by him in the compromise in which notices were ordered to be issued to the non applicants and public notice was also ordered to be published. From the ordersheet of Nazul Officer Rajnandgaon it further transpires that since no objection were filed by any of the parties, his name was ordered to be mutated in the revenue records which was ordered on 26.07.2018. 7. Likewise, Omprakash Daga had also filed an application for mutation of his name on 17.02.2020 in which also notices were ordered to be issued to the non applicants and notices were also directed to be published and non objection were received after publication of notice, 6 an order for mutation of his name also was passed on 28.01.2021 and in pursuance thereof their names have already been recorded in the revenue records. 8. Since the petitioner does not dispute that he signed the compromise deed on 19.01.2014 before the Lok Adalat, Rajnandgaon, and if he had not been apprised by the said compromise between the parties, he ought not to have signed the compromise deed and if any coercion or fraud were committed by the other parties, he would have challenged the same at the moment itself. Keeping silence for about more than 12 years particularly when the mutation of the respondents No.1&3 have already been taken place in the revenue record through a procedure prescribed under the law in the year 2018 and 2021 itself, yet the petitioner has not challenged the same, he now cannot claim that he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the Lok Adalat in the year 2014 or he was not known about the terms and condition of the same, or that he was kept in dark with all these proceedings. 9. Although the petitioner is claiming that the original record of the civil suit is not traceable and he could not get the relevant documents therefore he could not properly challenged the order passed by Lok Adalat, however, from perusal of documents annexed with the writ petition Annexure P/6 it transpires that the petitioner had applied for certified copy of the relevant documents from the civil suit in the year 2026 itself and there is no sufficient explanation for keeping silence for about more than 12 years. When he signed the compromise document in the year 2014 before the Lok Adalat and he was within knowledge of 7 deciding the civil suit based on compromise, he should have taken care of his rights and if he was having any grievance over the said compromise, either he refused to sign the document, or he could have challenged the same at that time itself. After more than 12 years it cannot be said that he raised his bonafide claim over the said property and challenged the orders passed by Lok Adalat or Revenue Courts. 10. From the aforesaid consideration, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in the present writ petition with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder