1 CGHC010335332026 2026:CGHC:39146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4530 of 2026 1 - Kapil Ramesh Bodani S/o Late Shri Ramesh Harbakshrai Bodani Aged About 25 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondia- Maharashtra- 441601 2 - Seema Ramesh Bodani W/o Late Ramesh Harbakshrai Bodani Aged About 57 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondia- Maharashtra- 441601 3 - Reshma Bodani D/o Late Shri Ramesh Harbakshrai Bodani Aged About 34 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondia- Maharashtra- 441601 4 - Shalini Bodani D/o Late Shri Ramesh Harbakshrai Bodani Aged About 29 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondia- Maharashtra- 441601 5 - Saurav Ramesh Bodani S/o Late Shri Ramesh Harbakshrai Bodani Aged About 26 Years R/o Hemu Colony Chowk, Sindhi Colony, Gondia- Maharashtra- 441601 ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Bank Of Baroda Through Its Authorized Officer, Orbit Tower, Sunder Nagar Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur- 492001 (C.G.) 5 - Shankar Jaykishan Kanjwani S/o Shri Jaykishan Premchand Kanjwani R/o Plot No. 215, Near Janata Hospital, Jaripatka, M.S.O., Nagpur, (Maharashtra) ---- Respondents 2 For Petitioners : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. GA For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following prayer(s) :- “i. To issue suitable writs, orders or directions or any other appropriate Writ, thereby Quashing the Order dt. 30/03/2026 passed by Respondent No. 3, SDO (Revenue) in Revenue Appeal No.202506111000176/अ- 6/year 2024-25. ii. To issue suitable writs, orders or directions or any other appropriate, Respondent No. 3 Bank to provide all the documents related to the said Account and under SARFAESI Act, enabling the Petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate directing the Forum. iii. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The present petition is being filed by the Petitioners (legal heirs of Late Shri Ramesh Harbakshrai Bodani) to challenge the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by Respondent, Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur in Revenue Appeal No.202506111000176/अ-6/year 2024-25. The disputed property is situated at Village Fafadih, Raipur. Late Shri 3 Ramesh Bodani had availed financial facilities from Bank of Baroda. Post demise of petitioners' father, Respondent No. 5 claimed rights over the property via an alleged SARFAESI auction and sought mutation. The Naib Tehsildar, Raipur rightly rejected Respondent mutation application on 18.03.2025. However, in an appeal, Respondent No. 1 unlawfully allowed the mutation on 30.03.2026, exceeding its jurisdiction by adjudicating complex issues of title, ownership, and the validity of SARFAESI proceedings summary which are beyond of the scope revenue/mutation proceedings. Hence, this petition to quash the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and contrary to law, as the Revenue Authority, while deciding a mutation appeal under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, travelled beyond the limited scope of mutation proceedings and adjudicated disputed questions of title, ownership and validity of the auction sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act. It is contended that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title. The legality of SARFAESI proceedings, auction proceedings and the Sale Certificate could only be examined by the competent forum under the SARFAESI Act or by a competent Civil Court. By directing mutation in favour of Respondent No.5 on the basis of the Sale Certificate, the Revenue Authority has virtually adjudicated and declared title, thereby causing serious civil consequences to the petitioners and violating their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petitioners 4 seek interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and quashing of the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered every aspect of the matter, and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners have already challenged the order passed by the SDO (Revenue) before the concerned Collector in Case No. 202604970100002 (Seema Ramesh Bodani & Ors. Vs. Shankar Jaikishan Kanjwani), and the said appeal is presently pending consideration. 7. In view of the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, this Court is of the view that the grounds raised by the petitioners with regard to the SDO (Revenue) having acted beyond its jurisdiction, particularly in relation to declaration of title/share, are matters which may appropriately be raised before the concerned Collector in the pending appeal. The concerned Collector shall consider and decide all such grounds in accordance with law. 8. Since the petitioners have already availed the statutory remedy by filing the appeal before the concerned Collector, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the present petition and pass any 5 order on the merits of the dispute. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to direct the concerned Collector to consider and decide the pending appeal expeditiously. 9. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise, before the concerned Collector, all such further grounds as have been raised in the present petition, and the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made herein. 10. Since the appeal has remained pending before the concerned Collector since April, 2026, the concerned Collector is directed to consider and decide the said appeal, in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, particularly keeping in view the dispute relating to declaration of title/shares of the parties. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vasant