1 2026:CGHC:2115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 90 of 2026 1 - Loknath Nayak S/o Shri Jagdish Nayak Aged About 73 Years R/o Village- Runjhuni Thana- Rajadeori, Tahsil- Sonakhan, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Protection Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Balodabazar Distt- Balodabaza-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Kasdol Distt- Balodabaza-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Sonakhan Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Golajhar Registration No. 199 Paddy Procurement Center Chandan Through- Prescribed Officer, Thana- Rajadeori, Tahsil- Sonakhan Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Pitambar Nayak S/o Shri Jagdish Nayak Aged About 87 Years R/o Village- Runjhuni, Thana- Rajadeori, Tahsil- Sonakhan Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. For Res. No. 6 : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 14/01 /2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 12.11.2025 passed by respondent No. 3/ Sub Divisional Officer by which the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 15.10.2025 has been set aside by deleting petitioner’s name from land bearing Khasra No. 29 area 4.148 Hectare and recorded the name of respondent No. 6 for registration of selling ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.14 17:15:19 +0530 2 peddy generated from the land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 6 who is elder brother of the petitioner, is not allowing him to sell the peddy produced in the agriculture land on the pretext that the family dispute is going on between the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and two brothers. He would further submit that the impugned order is against the principle of natural justice as before passing the final order, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner and would pray for setting aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 vehemently opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no right to sell the peddy as he has already been given his share in the family partition taken place between the family members, therefore, this petition at this stage is misconceived. He would further submit that the petitioner and the respondents are selling peddy of their respctive land allotted to them in the partition which is evident from the documents received from the society as such the petitioner intends to get double the amount which he is not entitled to get and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 5. The records of the case clearly demonstrate that respondent No. 6 has filed civil suit before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kasdol bearing Civil Suit No. 49A/2023 for grant of declaration of title and partition wherein the application for grant of injunction has been allowed against that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the learned Third District Judge, Balodabazar bearing Misc. Civil Appeal 3 No. 11/2024 wherein injunction has been modified to the extent that defendant No. 1/respondent No. 6 is only entitled to get the property bearing mentioned in the schedule along with other amenities. 6. From material placed on record, it is quite vivid that there is inter se dispute between the parties and civil suit is also going on but the peddy produced from the land in dispute cannot be kept which can cause loss to the parties. In view of the above, it is directed that whatever amount is received from selling the peddy produced in the land, the same shall be kept in the form of FDR in the nationalized bank by signatures of the petitioner, respondent No. 6 & two other brothers. It is made clear that the amount of FDR cannot be withdrawn, cancelled as well as period will not be extended without signatures of the petitioner, respondent No. 6 & two other brothers. 7. The genesis of the dispute in civil suit is pending before the learned trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Senior Division Kasdol, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to decide the civil suit within an outer limit of one year and three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun