1 CGHC010332212026 2026:CGHC:38798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4473 of 2026 Vishnu Yadav S/o Late Shri Ratiram Yadav Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Lalpur Tehsil Bhatapara, Distirct Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Teejram Yadav S/o Kanshiram Yadav Aged About 65 Years All R/o Villlage Lalpur Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Lalitram Yadav S/o Kanshiram Yadav Aged About 63 Years R/o Villlage Lalpur Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - Lalluram Yadav S/o Kanshiram Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Villlage Lalpur Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. 4 - Shankarram Yadav S/o Kanshiram Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Villlage Lalpur Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. 5 - Beniram Yadav S/o Kanshiram Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Villlage Lalpur Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. 6 - Bhagwanti Bai Yadav D/o Kanshiram Yadav Aged About 61 Years R/o Villlage Lalpur Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. 7 - Kejabai Yadav D/o Kanshiram Yadav Aged About 59 Years R/o Villlage Lalpur Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. 8 - Dayalu S/o Late Shri Motiram Aged About 72 Years Res No. 08 To 10 R/o Village Darra, District Korba C. G. 9 - Tukaram S/o Motiram Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Darra, District Korba C. G. 10 - Dayaram S/o Late Shri Motiram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Darra, District Korba C. G. 2 11 - Collector Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G. 12 - Nayab Tahsidar Nipaniya District Balodabazar Bhatapara, C.G.. ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, PL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: “10. Relief(s) Sought: . 10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS quashing the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Nayab Tahsildar, Nipaniya in Revenue Case No. RD/202526500207700001. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice.’’ 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the concerned Nayab Tahsildar, whereby the proceedings for correction of the revenue records have been stayed on the ground that First Appeal (bearing F.A. No.261/2025) is pending before this Court, despite there being no interim order passed by this Court staying the said revenue/mutation proceedings. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eye of law as respondent No.12/Nayab Tahsildar has exceeded his jurisdiction and has erred in failing to take into consideration that the learned Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2025 dismissed the suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 to 7 and upheld the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein in favour of the present petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 26.09.2011. The petitioner is purchaser of the subject land and on the basis of said registered sale deed dated 26.09.2011, his name was initially mutated in the revenue records. Subsequently, a civil suit was instituted, wherein a decree was passed in favour of respondent Nos.8 to 10, pursuant to which the concerned Tahsildar mutated the name of respondent Nos.8 to 10 in the revenue records and deleted the name of the present petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 had instituted a suit seeking declaration of title and partition, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by which, a First Appeal was preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 7 before this Court which was registered as FA No.261/2025. In order-sheet dated 10.12.2025 of said appeal, this Court observed that the doctrine of lis pendens as contemplated under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would be applicable to the subject matter of the suit. Taking note of the said observation, the concerned Tahsildar mutated the name of 4 respondent Nos. 8 to 10 in the revenue records. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said action and, therefore, approached to this Court with above reliefs. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including the impugned order. 6. Admittedly, if any order has been passed by the concerned Tahsildar in exercise of the jurisdiction vested with him; since the Tahsildar has the power and authority to mutate or delete the names in the revenue records, the petitioner is required to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the competent authority/court having jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, but the petitioner has directly approached this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 7. Considering the above aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner before the concerned competent authority/court and the petitioner ought to avail the such remedy in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned competent authority/court by availing the appropriate remedy in accordance with law. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.