1 2026:CGHC:14358 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3187 of 2020 1 - Rammani Pandey S/o Late Kameshwar Kumar Pandey Aged About 57 Years Mo. No. 9981722090, R/o Pathariya, Police Station And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjeev Mohan Pandey S/o Late Kameshwar Kumar Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o Pathariya, Police Station And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Neelmani Pandey S/o Late Kameshwar Kumar Pandey Aged About 51 Years R/o Pathariya, Police Station And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sheelmani Pandey S/o Late Kameshwar Kumar Pandey Aged About 49 Years Mo. No. 9981122570, R/o Pathariya, Police Station And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Pratima Mishra D/o Late Kameshwar Kumar Pandey Aged About 60 Years W/o P.N. Mishra, R/o Pathariya, Police Station And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Vibha Pandey D/o Late Kameshwar Kumar Pandey Aged About VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 53 Years R/o Pathariya, Police Station And Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajeev Kumar Dixit S/o Late Home Prasad Dixit Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Achanakpur, Post Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, P.L. For respondent No.5 :- Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. This petition is being filed against Memo No. 305/
:-1/2020 Pathariya dated 07.11.2020 issued by Respondent No. 3, 3 whereby the petitioners have been directed to provide a passage to Respondent No. 5 from their own land bearing Khasra Nos. 187/1, 189, 190 and 191 situated at Village Siltara, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.) (Annexure-P/1), and further against the registration of Revenue Case No. 202008250500005/B-121/2019-2020 by Respondent No. 3 on the basis of an application submitted by Respondent No. 5 seeking such passage through the petitioners’ land (Annexure-P/2), and also against the registration of Revenue Case No. 1/A-13/2018- 2019 titled “Rajeev Dixit Vs. Rammani Pandey & Others”, initiated on the application of Respondent No. 5 for providing passage through the petitioners’ land (Annexure-P/3). 2. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the memo no. 305/
.-1/2020 Pathariya, dated 07.11.2020 (Annexure-P/1). 3. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding of revenue case no. 202008250500005/B- 121/2019-2020 registered by respondent no. 3 between "Rajeev Dixit Vs. Rammani Pandey & others" (Annexure- P/2). 4 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding of revenue case no. 1/A-13/2018-2019 between "Rajeev Dixit Vs. Rammani Pandey & others" (Annexure- P/3). 10.5 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 4. Facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners, namely Late K.K. Pandey (Kameshwar Kumar Pandey), purchased the land bearing Khasra Nos. 187/1 admeasuring 15.50 acres, 190 admeasuring 5.00 acres, 191 admeasuring 0.18 acres and 189 admeasuring 0.86 acres, along with other lands situated at Village Siltara, P.H. No. 7, Revenue Circle Pathariya, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur, from Abdul Rashid Khan through a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1963 in his capacity as Bhoomi Swami. On the basis of the said sale deed, the aforesaid lands were duly recorded in the name of the petitioners’ father as Bhoomi Swami in the revenue records up to the year 1988–1989. Thereafter, due to arbitrary action of the respondent authorities, remarks were inserted in the revenue records showing the land as reserved for “Aam Charai” and further as “Bhoomi Swami from Government Lease and Not Transferable”. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No. 1950/2020 before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of on 17.09.2020 with a direction to the petitioners 5 to approach Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners approached Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the matter is still pending consideration. In the meantime, Respondent No. 5 submitted an application before Respondent No. 4 seeking a direction to provide a 30 x 20 ft passage through the petitioners’ land bearing Khasra No. 189 situated at Village Siltara for access to his land bearing Khasra No. 964/2 situated at Village Kapuwa. On the basis of the said application, Revenue Case No. 01/A-13/2018-2019 titled “Rajeev Dixit Vs. Rammani Pandey & Others” was registered and fixed for evidence on 14.02.2020. The revision preferred by Respondent No. 5 before Respondent No. 2 against the order dated 14.02.2020 was dismissed on 25.11.2020. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Respondent No. 5 again filed another application before Respondent No. 3 on 16.07.2020 seeking the same relief. On the basis of the said application, Revenue Case No. 202008250500005/B-121/2019- 2020 was registered against the petitioners and was fixed for hearing on 17.11.2020. In the meantime, Respondent No. 3, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and beyond the scope of the pending proceedings, abruptly issued Memo No. 305/
:-1/2020 dated 07.11.2020 directing the petitioners to provide passage to Respondent No. 5 through their land situated at Village Siltara for access to the land of Respondent No. 5 bearing Khasra Nos. 962 and 964/1 situated at 6 Village Kapuwa. The said action is wholly without jurisdiction as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no authority under Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code to grant such relief. The land of the petitioners is not recorded in the Nistari Patrak of Village Siltara. Therefore, Respondent No. 5 has no legal right to claim any such passage. Despite the same, the respondent authorities have illegally entertained and proceeded with the matter. The impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust, unwarranted and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by Respondent No. 5 under Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is not in accordance with law. However, the said application was entertained by the Tehsildar. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No. 5 filed two applications—one before the Tehsildar and another before the concerned SDO. It is further submitted that the concerned SDO, after considering the nature of the case, directed the concerned Tehsildar to proceed in the matter, and the Tehsildar, vide order dated 16.03.2021, remitted the matter back for fresh consideration while directing that due enquiry be conducted as envisaged under Section 131. Thereafter, the matter was closed by the concerned SDO, Pathariya, District Mungeli. 7 6. From perusal of the aforesaid order as well as Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959, it is quite vivid that the statutory power to examine the dispute, conduct local enquiry, verify the factual position at site, and thereafter take an appropriate decision has specifically been vested in the concerned Tehsildar by the legislature. The provision clearly contemplates that before arriving at any conclusion, the competent revenue authority is required to undertake due enquiry with reference to the land in question and consider the rights, possession, and objections of the parties concerned in accordance with law. 7. In the present case, this Court finds that the concerned SDO, upon consideration of the nature of controversy involved, has not exceeded jurisdiction; rather, the SDO has rightly directed the parties to approach the competent authority, namely the concerned Tehsildar, who alone is empowered under the statute to undertake factual verification and adjudicate the matter at the first instance. The order passed by the SDO thus appears to be in consonance with the scheme of Section 131 of the Code, which envisages primary adjudication by the Tehsildar after local enquiry. 8. Since disputed questions of fact are involved, particularly requiring examination of the factual status at site and consideration of rival claims of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that such exercise is best left to the statutory authority competent 8 under the Code rather than being undertaken in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that while proceeding in the matter, the concerned Tehsildar shall conduct a proper enquiry strictly in the manner envisaged under Section 131 of the Code, shall afford adequate opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, permit them to place relevant documents/material in support of their respective claims, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 10. It is further observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application, along with all supporting documents, before the concerned Tehsildar, if so advised. The Tehsildar shall thereafter consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha