Chattisgarh High Court

Manohar Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2025

                                                         1




                                                                            2025:CGHC:19766
        Digitally
        signed by
        RAVI
RAVI    SHANKAR
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
        2025.05.17
        12:13:17


                                                                                       NAFR
        +0530




                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                              WPC No. 5803 of 2024


                     1 - Manohar Yadav S/o Late Dugrulal Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o
                     Village Lodhajhar Tahsil Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                                                   ... Petitioner


                                                      versus


                     1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
                     Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya Atal
                     Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

                     2 - The Additional Collector Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.)

                     3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kharsiya District - Raigarh
                     (C.G.)

                     4 - The Tahsildar Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.)

                     5 - Dhanpati Yadav S/o Late Dugrulal Yadav Aged About 51 Years R/o
                     Village Lodhajhar Tahsil Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.)

                     6 - Dhanurjay Yadav S/o Late Dugrulal Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o
                     Village Lodhajhar Tahsil Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                                            ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For State/Respondent/s : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

30/04/2025

1. Heard Mr. Roop Ram Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the

State/respondents.

2. The petitioner sought to challenge order dated 28.08.2024 passed

by the Additional Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

whereby while hearing revision filed by the petitioner he has

confirmed the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Sub

Divisional Officer (R), Kharsiya.

3. By this instant petition, the petitioner has sought following relief/s :

"10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued appropriate writ/order by setting-aside /quash the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. 202406043300010/73/A- 27/2023-24 by the respondent No. 2.

10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order by declaring that the learned revenue authority/revenue court (respondent No.3) that they have no jurisdiction to restrain the petitioner/parties from alienation/buy-sell by exercising the power under Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other suitable writ/orders/directions in favour

of the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. The fact as summarized by the petitioner in this case is like that

the father of the petitioner and the respondents No.5 & 6 possess

agricultural land total Khasra No. 14, total area 2.484 hectare

situated at Village - Lodhajhar, P.H. No.37, Tehsil - Kharsiya,

District - Raigarh. After the death of father of the petitioner and the

respondent No.5 and 6, the name of mother of the parties namely

Jamuna Bai was recorded in the revenue records. Some portions

of the land have been sold due to family requirements. The

respondent No.6, one of the real brother has filed an application

for partition before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar has declared other

parties to be ex-party and has portioned the properties on the

basis of pleadings made in the application and accordingly, out of

total land of Khasra No. 8, total area 1.4240 hectares the

respondent No.6 Dhanurjay has been given in partition total area

0.617 hectares from the aforesaid Khasras and for that the

concerned Halka Patwari was directed to get partitioned the

property as per the aforesaid order and to mutate his name in the

revenue records The said order was challenged before the Sub

Divisional Officer (R) in an appeal by Dhanpati Yadav who

happens to be sister of the petitioner as well as the respondents

No..5 & 6. The SDO (R) vide its order dated 29.05.2024 has

passed an interim order while restraining the parties from creating

third party interest by way of sale and other modes. The aforesaid

orders was challenged by the petitioner as well as Dhanurjay

Yadav/respondent No.6 in which vide order dated 28.08.2024 the

Additional Collector Raigarh has rejected the revision filed by the

present petitioner as well as respondent No..6 stating that the

interim order of stay has rightly been passed by the SDO (R) by

holding that if during the pendency of appeal third party interest

would be created while selling the same, it will create multiplicity

of the litigation as such the SDO (R) has rightly stayed the order

which is in accordance with Section 52 of the Land Revenue Code

and the same is not required to be interfered with. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order impugned

is not accordance with law as by passing the aforesaid order

infact the SDO (R) has passed an order of injunction which is

exclusive domain of civil jurisdiction Court. The Revenue Court

can not pass such an order and therefore the Additional Collector

ought to have interfered with the order and should have relegated

the parties to approach before the Civil jurisdictional Court for

seeking relief in this matter while challenging the partition

proceedings which has not been done and in a illegal manner the

concerned Additional Collector has passed an order which is

required to be interfered with. He has placed reliance upon an

order of this Court in the matter of Siraj Ahmed vs State of C.G

and others reported in 2017 IV CGLJ 559.

5. No one appears on behalf of the private respondents.

6. From the order sheets it appears that notices were not issued and

infact the petitioner has taken time on 10.12.2024, 02.01.2025,

09.01.2025, as such, the petition itself could not be heard.

Thereafter a Court-slip was taken on 02.04.2025 upon which the

case was directed to be listed in the week commencing

28.04.2025. From the perusal of the record it appears that the

private respondents are yet to be issued notices, however this fact

has been deliberately concealed/suppressed by the petitioner and

behind the back of respondent no.5 & 6 the petitioner purported to

take relief from this Court. Not a single argument has been raised

by the counsel for the petitioner that the present matter requires

issuance of notices to the respondents No.5 & 6 as they were yet

not issued any notices. Before the concerned SDO (R), the

respondent No.5 has filed an appeal in which order restraining

sale of land was passed by order dated 29.05.2024, as such, the

respondent No.5 would be necessary party, since the petitioner by

his conduct has suppressed material facts from this Court

regarding non-issuance of notices to the private respondents No.5

& 6, as such, this deliberate action from the side of petitioner has

been taken seriously by this Court. Further, from the perusal of the

order sheets it seems that in not a single occasion the case was

heard on merits due adjournment sought by the petitioner. As the

revision was against interim order dated 29.95.2024 and the

petitioner has not stated anything on the recent status of the case.

This deliberate action has been taken into account seriously and

accordingly, a cost of Rs.5,000/- is being imposed upon the

petitioner for concealing and suppressing material facts during the

course of arguments. Looking to the nature of the case, whereby

the SDO (R) has passed an order in the nature of temporary

injunction for which he has no jurisdiction, the case is being heard

on merits.

7. Even other wise also Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, 1882

also deals that the nature of order passed is required to be

passed by the Court having jurisdictional authority which in the

present matter, the revenue Court lacks, as such, the order

impugned is also unsustainable.

8. This Court in Seraj Ahmad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others

2017 (4) C.G.L.J. 559 has held that the order to grant injunction is

surely vested in the jurisdictional Civil Court and the Revenue

Courts cannot grant the order of injunction and it was held that the

revenue order granting temporary injunction restraining the

transfer would be without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

The said judgment was based on a decision of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court rendered in Maya Lalchandani (Mrs.) Vs.

Board of Revenue 2009 (3) MPLJ 660, this Court also in

respectful agreement with the judgment passed by this Court in

Seraj Ahmad Vs. State of C.G. (Supra) the relevant part of the

decision is reproduced herein below:

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has passed order on 10.03.2016 granting temporary injunction for which he has no jurisdiction, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. He relies upon a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Maya Lalchandani (Mrs.) and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others in which the M.P. High Court has held as under:

"4. After going through the order passed by the learned President, Board of Revenue and taking into consideration the legal provisions, we are of the opinion that the directions sisued in paragraph 7 of the order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be allowed to stand. Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code talks of the inherent powers of the Revenue Authorities while Section 43 talks of applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is to be seen from Section 32 that nothing in the Land Revenue Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Section 43 simply provides that unless otherwise expressly provided in the Code, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure shall, so far as may be, followed in all proceedings under the Code. Section 43 in no case would authorise a Revenue Authority to grant an injunction. Section 43 simply provides that the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure so far as may be followed in all proceedings under

the Code. It is also to be seen from the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure that an injunction can be granted only by civil Court and by none else. Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code only talks of the inherent powers of the Revenue Courts where they are required to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The powers under Section 32 can be exercised within the Code itself and not beyond the Code. If the Revenue Authority does not have the power to grant injunction then the Board of Revenue also could not grant injunction."

3. The order to grant injunction is surely vested in the jurisdictional civil court, revenue courts cannot grant order of injunction. Therefore, the order passed by the revenue authority granting temporary injunction restraining transfer following the principle of law laid down in Maya Lalchandani (Supra) is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. It is accordingly set aside. However, the Sub-Divisional officer (Revenue) is directed to take decision on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law, expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

9. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter as the order to

grant injunction is surely vested with the jurisdictional Civil Court

and the Revenue Courts cannot grant order of injunction as such

it is held that the revenue order granting temporary injunction

restraining the transfer would be without jurisdiction and without

authority of law.

10. Accordingly, the petition succeeds, impugned order passed by the

Additional Collector, Raigarh is hereby set-aside. Since the

aforesaid order was passed as interim order, the concerned

Additional Collector, Raigarh is directed to decide the matter

expeditiously, if it is not yet decided.

11. The cost imposed upon the petitioner is directed to be paid within