1 2026:CGHC:6240 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 468 of 2026 Sheikh Maaroof S/o Sheikh Majid Aged About 40 Years R/o Daupara, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ali Munnisha W/o Late Sheikh Aziz Aged About 58 Years R/o Vikas Nagar Colony, 27 Kholi, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Through - Power Of Attorney Saiyyad Wazid S/o Hamid Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Kabir Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Sheikh Ifitkhar S/o Late Sheikh Aziz Aged About 39 Years R/o Vikas Nagar Colony, 27 Kholi, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Through - Power Of Attorney Saiyyad Wazid S/o Hamid Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Kabir Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Gulnaz Bano D/o Late Sheikh Aziz Aged About 38 Years R/o Vikas Nagar Colony, 27 Kholi, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Through - Power Of Attorney Saiyyad Wazid S/o Hamid Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Kabir Ward, Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Nazul Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondents 4 & 5/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.02.05 11:00:58 +0530 2 “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the trial Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing and complete proceedings initiated by the respondent No.4 Nazul Officer passed in Revenue Case No.202407250800010/A6/2022-23 parties between Ali Munnisha Vs. Sheikh Maaroof (Annexure-P/1) & also quashing the order dated 12.06.2024. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondents No.1 to 3 belong to the same extended family and in family partition, the subject shop fell to the share of the father of the petitioner, in which, the petitioner is running an electrical shop. However, respondents No.1 to 3 filed application before respondent No.4/Nazul Officer, for eviction of the petitioner and also for grant of possession of the subject shop, to which, respondent No.4 has initiated Revenue Case No. 202407250800010/A6/2022-23 (Annexure-P/1). Learned counsel further submits that Nazul Officer, Mungeli vide Order dated 12.6.2024, has observed that the respondent (petitioner herein) has failed to prove his title over the subject shop, but the Nazul Officer has no authority to decide the title of the parties. Despite that, he has proceeded in the aforesaid revenue case, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be admitted for hearing. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that if the Nazul Officer has no right to hear the case, then the petitioner may challenge the hearing proceedings before the Collector, Mungeli. She further submits that since there is title dispute between the parties, therefore, efficacious 3 remedy available to the petitioner is to file civil suit, hence, this petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the pleading of the petitioner as well as the order dated 12.6.2024 passed by Nazul Officer, Mungeli shows that earlier partition was effected between the petitioner’s father and Shiefkh Aziz, who was husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 & 3. It appears that both the parties are claiming right on the subject shop contending that said shop fell to the share of their respective father/husband. Thus, there exists a clear dispute with regard to title. In the cases involving a title dispute, Revenue Officer has no authority to adjudicate such dispute. Despite that, Nazool Officer, Mungeli has registered Revenue Case No. 202407250800010/A6/2022-23 (Annexure-P/1), which is beyond his jurisdiction. In the instant case, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to file civil suit. Since an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate civil suit. 7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini