1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 66 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Modi S/o. Late Shri Kishanlal, Aged About 64 Years R/o. Modi Road, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) Applicant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Priyanka Chandra Tehsildar Katghora, District Korba C.G. 2 - SDO (Revenue), Katghora, District Korba C.G. 3 - Collector, Korba, District Korba C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For Resp No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA For SECL : Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Sudhir Bajpai and Shri Atul Kesharwani, Advocates Shri Rohit Kumar Singh, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kathghora is also present. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 07/04/2026 1. This Civil Revision has been preferred by the applicant/plaintiff assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 01.01.2026 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.04.08 12:09:16 +0530 2 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in MJC (Civil) No. 19/2025, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC has been dismissed. 2. (a) Brief facts, as projected by the applicant, are that the applicant along with co-plaintiff Smt. Preeti Devi Modi are the registered owners and in possession of the agricultural lands situated at Village Arda, Patwari Halka No. 07, Revenue Circle Jawali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), bearing Khasra Nos. 217/34 and 217/56 admeasuring total 4.440 hectares in the name of the applicant and Khasra Nos. 217/44 and 217/60A admeasuring total 2.525 hectares in the name of co-plaintiff Smt. Preeti Devi Modi, wife of the present applicant. (b) It is averred that after execution of registered sale deeds in the year 2005 in favour of the applicant and his wife by the original owner namely Ratan Lal S/o Thunuram, Shivcharan Yadav S/o Shri Dayaram Yadav and Mohit Das S/o Sona Das, possession of the said lands was handed over and the names of the applicant as well as the co-plaintiff were duly recorded in the revenue records. The applicant further developed the land by planting fruit-bearing trees, eucalyptus and teak trees, and also constructed fencing, a watchman house, a garden and a temple for protection and maintenance of the property. (c) It is further pleaded that on 16.07.2025, the officials of SECL, Korba, without any prior notice or lawful authority, forcibly entered the suit land and started digging the same with the help of heavy machinery 3 after damaging the boundary. Despite objections and complaints made by the applicant before the revenue and police authorities, the SECL allegedly continued their attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession of the applicant over the suit land. (d) In such circumstances, the applicant along with the co-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 47-A/2025. The trial Court, vide order dated 30.09.2025, allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs (applicant herein) and granted temporary injunction in their favour, while rejecting the similar application filed by the defendants. It is further stated that prior thereto, on 18.07.2025, in proceedings under Section 250(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Tehsildar, Katghora had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question. Subsequently, a suo motu proceeding under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 was initiated against the applicant on 09.10.2025 by the Tehsildar, Katghora. 3. Being aggrieved by the alleged violation of the temporary injunction order dated 30.09.2025 and continuation of eviction proceedings, the applicant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC with regard to the consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction along with an application under Section 151 CPC seeking stay of the proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code. 4. The learned trial Court, however, vide the impugned order dated 01.01.2026, dismissed the application filed under Section 151 CPC, 4 which has given rise to the present revision. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in settled and lawful possession of the suit land, particularly Khasra Nos. 217/34, 217/56, 217/44 and 217/60A, and despite a subsisting order of temporary injunction operating in his favour, the authorities are continuously interfering with and disturbing such possession by initiating unwarranted proceedings and attempting to dispossess him, thereby acting in clear defiance of the injunction order and causing serious prejudice to the applicant. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. It is contended that the Court has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which preserves the inherent powers of the Civil Court to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It is further submitted that despite a subsisting order of temporary injunction dated 30.09.2025 in favour of the applicant, the authorities have continuously attempted to interfere with the applicant’s peaceful possession and have initiated multiple proceedings under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, including proceedings under Sections 248 and 250(3), with an oblique motive to harass the applicant and to defeat the injunction order. Learned counsel submits that earlier proceedings, including demarcation proceedings and eviction proceedings, have already been stayed by the competent revenue authorities, yet initiated fresh proceedings under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code only to circumvent and frustrate the orders passed in favour of the applicant. 5 Such conduct amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is also contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC could have been exercised to stay the revenue proceedings so as to protect the subject matter of the civil suit and to prevent violation of the injunction order. Non-exercise of such jurisdiction has resulted in failure of justice and may render the civil proceedings infructuous. Learned counsel further submits that the subject matter of the suit is required to be preserved during pendency of the proceedings and the Civil Court ought not to have taken a hyper- technical view regarding its jurisdiction vis-à-vis the revenue authorities. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed under Section 151 CPC be allowed. 6. In the instant revision, the SECL filed an application (IA No. 2/2026) uner Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. In the said application, the SECL contended that though it is an interested and necessary party, the applicant failed to array it in the case at hand as a necessary party respondent. Learned counsel for the SECL would submit that the lands which are in possession of the applicatn i.e. Khasra Nos. 217/34, 217/56, 217/44 and 217/60A have never been disturbed by the SECL whereas the applicant himself trying to grab the land bearing Khasara No. 224. He would submit that the proceedings under Section 248 of the CGLRC challenged by the present applicant before the Court Divisional Commissioner, which are pending consideration and without waiting for the decision, the applicant stright away approached this Court. He would submit that with regard to Khasra No. 224, the proceedings under 6 Section 248 have been initiated and the said land is entirely different from the land bearing Khasra No. 217 in respect of the temporary injunction has been passed by the learned Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 47-A/2025. 7. Replying to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the SECL, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the contempt proceedings, the necessary parties are those who had violated the order and as such, the SECL cannot claim impleadment in the said MJC proceedings. According to him, the applicant herein is a dominus litus and as such, he cannot be forced to contest the matter against the party, against whom, he does not want to contest. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court after hearing the applicant and learned counsel for the State on 16/03/2026 issued notice to respondents and passed the interim order as under:- “Meanwhile, purely as an interim measure, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo, in respect of the land in question, as it exists today, which is being proceeded under Section 248 of the CGLRC, till the next date of hearing.” 10. Again on 01/04/2026, the matter was listed before this Court, wherein, this Court passed the following orders:- “Shri V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sudhir Bajpai & Shri Atul Kesharwani, Advocates, appears on behalf of SECL and by referring I.A. No.02/2026 7 application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and I.A. No. 03/2026 application for vacating the interim order dated 16.03.2026, submits that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been filed on behalf of SECL on the ground that SECL is a necessary party to the present Civil Revision, being an interested party in the matter. He also submits that the application for vacating the interim order dated 16.03.2026 has been filed as the proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the CGLRC, at the instance of SECL, have been stayed by this Court. Learned counsel next submits that the said proceedings under Section 248 of the CGLRC are also challenged by the present applicant before the Court of Divisional Commissioner. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to file reply to the aforesaid applications i.e. 1.A.No.2 of 2026 and 1.A.No.3 of 2026. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. During the course of arguments by referring the demarcation report annexed by the applicant at page 81 of the memo of revision, learned Senior counsel submits that the Panchnama was prepared in presence of the applicant wherein it has been categorically recorded that Khasra No. 224, in respect of which proceedings under Section 248 of the CGLRC have been initiated, is entirely different from the land bearing Khasra No. 217, in respect of which an injunction order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 47-A/2025. Be that as it may, the Collector, Korba is directed to file an affidavit before this Court on or before 06.04.2026 clarifying as to whether the Panchnama dated 29.09.2025 prepared at the time of demarcation on the basis of which the report (page 81 of the memo of revision) has been 8 drawn, was conducted in presence of the petitioner or his authorized representative. Learned Collector shall also clarify whether the land for which the proceeding under Section 248 of CGLRC is being drawn is different & separate to the land bearing Khasra No. 217. List it on Monday i.e. 06.04.2026. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing.” 11. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the affidavit has been filed by the Collector, Korba. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court yesterday i.e. 06/04/2026, wherein this Court passed the following orders:- “From the perusal of the said affidavit, it appears that the petitioner or his representative was present on the date of the Panchnama and at the time when demarcation was carried out by the Joint Inspection Team for verification of the land. Learned counsel for the State is unable to explain or state whether the said Panchnama proceedings bears the signature of the petitioner or his representative, or whether the petitioner or his representative was present at the time of inspection and identification of the land. Let the Sub Division Magistrate, Kathghora be directed to remain present tomorrow along with the record of the inspection conducted by the Joint Inspection Team regarding the demarcation carried out from 26/09/2025 to 29/09/2025. List this case tomorrow, i.e. 07/04/2026 at 10:30 AM at the top of the list. 9 Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.” 12. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kathghora appeared before this Court and by referring the Panchnama report (Annexure-R/6 Colly) would submit that the demarcation proceedings were initiated in presence of the parties and the representative of the applicant namely Praveen Agrawal appeared and put his signature, which is apparent from page 26 and 27 of the affidavit filed by the Collector, Korba on 06/04/2026. However, said Praveen Agrawal not represented on 27/09/2025 (page No. 28 of affidavit). 13. The Collector, Korba submitted a detailed affidavit in compliance of the order dated 01/04/2026. Paras 5 to 12 are relevant for adjudication of the present revision, which read as under: 1. XXX XXX XXX 2. XXX XXX XXX 3. XXX XXX XXX 4. XXX XXX XXX 5. It is humbly submitted on the part of the answering respondent that the alleged revenue proceedirig for which the petitioner is alleging that this revenue proceeding is going on for Khasra No. 217 and other khasra numbers related to 217 for which he has filed the civil suit but the petitioner himself submitted the copies of the order of the order of Court of Tehsildar-Katghora in which it is specifically mentioned that this revenue proceeding is belongs to land bearing Khasra No. 224, the land of Khasra No. 224 is a government land which proves 10 from the Misal Bandobast record of the year 1929-30 of village Arda. A copy of the Misal Bandobast is filed herewith as ANNEXURE R/1. It is also pertinent to mention here that the land bearing Khasra No. 224 has been acquired by the SECL, Government of India, Ministry of Energy by notification dated 07.05.1990. A copy of the notification is filed herewith as ANNEXURE R/2. 6. The petitioner have filed the civil suit for the land which belongs to Khasra No. 217 and other land which also belongs to Khasra No. 217 and in the civil suit he has not stated anything in relation to the Khasra No. 224 to resolve the dispute on 12.09.2025 the Uppar Collector, Korba constituted a team of 7 members to demarcate the land of Khasra No. 224. A copy of the order dated 12.09.2025 is filed herewith. team as which has been ANNEXURE R/3. The constituted by the order dated 12.09.2025 has issued notice to all the relevant persons informing them regarding the demarcation proceedings. Even, the notice has been sent to the present petitioner Sanjay Kumar S/o Lt. Shri Krishan Lal. A copy of the notice dated 24.09.2025 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE R/4. 7. That, the present petitioner submitted his return objection regarding the demarcation of 06.10.2025 before the Superintendent, Land record of Korba district which was duly received from the concerred office. A copy of the letter dated 06.10.2025 is filed herewith as ANNEXURE R/5. 8. That, the team which has been constituted in compliance of the court order of Uppar Collector 11 have made panchnama of 19.09.2025 in relation to demarcation again panchanama was prepared on 25.09.2025, 26.09.2025, 27.09.2025 and 29.09.2025. A copy of all the panchanamas are collectively annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R/6 (Colly) and finally the team has submitted the Demarcation report in which it was found that some part of the Khasra No. 224 has been encroached by several persons including the present petitioner. A copy of the report is filed herewith as ANNEXURE R/7. Hence, the petitioner has not stated the clean and clear facts before this Hon'ble Court and he is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Court by stating the wrong facts as the revenue proceedings and the civil suit both have been filed before the land and which are registered in different Khasra numbers, the Khasra No. 224 for which the revenue proceedings is going on which revels by the order of the revenue court which has been field by the petitioner himself is government land in which the petitioner himself is a encroacher and the petitioner had filed the civil suit for the land bearing Khasra No. 217, 217/34, 217/56, 217/44 and 217/60-A hence, the trial order passed by the trial court is correct and did not need for any interference. 9. That, it is humbly submitted on the part of the answering respondent that the entire case which is going on before the Revenue Court belongs to Khasra No. 224 which is a government land and the records are not dispute that the petitioner have filed the civil suit for the Khasra No. 217 and other related to Khasras which are related to Khasra No. 217 not to Khasra No. 224. 12 10. That, Khasra No. 224 has been acquired by the SECL prior to many years ago and now the SECL is constructing a paste filled plant on the land and the state is handling the possession to SECL. 2. The state is handing possession to SECL. 11. Any dispute about demarcation between 217 and 224 was resolved when a district level team via proper procedure, carefully mapped the entirety of 224 and concluded that the petitioner has encroached on about 9 acres of government land. It is impor'ant to note that there is no construction on this land by the petitioner, only a basic fence used to encroach over government property. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of the demarcation and preparation of the Panchnama two persons namely Pravin agrawal and Naresh Dewangan were present they dully signed the Panchnama and they have informed orally to the authorities at the time of demarcation that they are attending the demarcation proceeding on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Modi being his representative as they are care taker of the land. 12. That, on the cost of repetition the deponent again submitted that he is bound to follow each and every direction/order/common issued by this Hon'ble Court and he is obliged to act in accordance with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. 14. At the outset, it is apposite to observe that the scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited. Unless the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, material irregularity or patent perversity, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the same. 13 15. Upon due consideration of the record, particularly the demarcation report submitted by the Joint Inspection Team and the affidavit filed by the Collector, Korba, as also the submission made by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, it is manifest that the proceedings initiated under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code pertain to land bearing Khasra No. 224, which is distinct and separate from the land forming the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 47-A/2025, i.e. Khasra No. 217 and its sub-divisions. The applicant has failed to place any cogent material to establish that the said revenue proceedings relate to the suit land or that the temporary injunction order dated 30.09.2025 has been violated. 16. On the contrary, the material on record indicates that the demarcation proceedings were conducted in the presence of the representative of the applicant and due opportunity was afforded. The plea that the proceedings were undertaken behind the back of the applicant is, therefore, untenable. Further, the applicant has already availed the remedy against the proceedings under Section 248 of the Code before the competent forum, which is stated to be pending consideration. 17. It is also significant to note that the applicant has not approached this Court with complete material facts regarding the distinct identity of Khasra No. 224. The omission to implead SECL, which is a necessary and proper party in the facts of the present case, also assumes relevance. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to interdict statutory proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, particularly 14 when the applicant has an efficacious alternative remedy and has, in fact, already availed the same. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. 19. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Particularly, when the learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondent and the SDO appeared before this Court along with record of the demarcation proceedings specifically stated that the proceeding initiated under Section 248 of the CGLRC is only in repsect of land bearing Khasarana No. 224 and land bearing Khasra Nos. 217/34, 217/56, 217/44 and 217/60A are completely different from Khasra No. 224. 20. Consequently, the Civil Revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 21. Albeit, the applicant has not pleaded regarding the pendency of proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner arising out of the action initiated by the Tehsildar under Section 248 of the CGLRC, it is evident from paragraph 4 of the application filed by SECL for vacating the interim order that such proceedings are pending. Accordingly, the applicant shall be at liberty to pursue the said proceedings before the competent revenue authority, in accordance with law, against the action taken under Section 248 of the CGLRC 22. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri