Chattisgarh High Court
Samrath Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2025
1/3
Digitally signed
by GOPAL
SINGH
Date:
2025.03.27
19:52:53 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1503 of 2025
SAMRATH YADAV versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Order Sheet
25/03/2025 Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondents No.1 to 3.
Heard on admission and I.A. No.1 for grant of ad interim relief.
Issue notice.
Shri Mayur Khandelwal, learned Panel Lawyer takes notice on
behalf of the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Hence, no notice is required
to be issued to these respondents.
Issue notice to respondents No.4 to 7 by ordinary as well as
registered modes on payment of process fee as per rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application
for partition was moved by respondents No.4 and 5 upon which the
Tahsildar, Ramanujnagar has initiated proceedings and has issued
notice against the parties. The petitioner being one of the parties has
received the said notice on 23.4.2024. After receipt of the notice, reply
was filed by the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner filed a civil suit
for declaration of his title on the basis of a registered will dated
15.6.1982 executed in his favour along with relief of permanent
injunction. This fact was brought into the notice of the concerned
Tahsildar and accordingly the Tahsildar has stayed the further
proceedings of the partition proceedings for three months. However,
vide order dated 6.3.2025 he has passed an order stating that since there
is no any interim order in the shape of stay obtained by the petitioner in
the civil suit, as such the concerned Halka Patwari was directed to
mutate the name of the petitioner as per the partition. As such the
petitioner has filed this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the civil
jurisdictional Court is seized of the matter, the Tahsildar cannot pass
any order in respect of the property in question. Reliance has been
placed on a judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the
case of Nagjiram v. Mangilal and other, AIR 1977 MP 8.
Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, when a query
was put upon learned counsel for the State, he submits that he will file
a reply.
In view of the aforesaid settled position that once the Civil
Court is seized of the matter, the revenue Courts have no power to pass
any order in respect of the property in question.
In a recent order, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2416
passed in the matter of Mohd. Abid and others v. Ravi Naresh and
others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"4. It is, however, an admitted fact that the
petitioners have already filed a suit for
injunction in which ex-parte ad-interim
injunction has been granted by the Civil Court,
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh on 05.12.2020. Once
the Civil Court is seized of the matter, it goes
without saying that the proceedings under
Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and
must come to an end. The inter-se rights of the
parties regarding title or possession are
eventually to be determined by the Civil Court."
Therefore, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated
6.3.2025 is hereby stayed and if any order has already been passed the
same shall be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of this petition.
Any deviation from this order will be treated as violation of the
order passed by this Court and accordingly it will be treated strictly
against the person concerned.
Learned counsel for the State is directed to file reply to the writ
petition as well as to I.A. No.1 for ad interim relief within four weeks.
List this matter in the week commencing 5.5.2025 for final
disposal at motion stage.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Gopal Singh
