Dismissed¶68

Harivansh Dubey and Ors. v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Feb 2026WPC/1966/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ maintainability; disputed title; pure property dispute; civil suit as proper remedy; Articles 226 and 227; permanent injunction; declaration of title; nazul land; settlement of land; Board of Revenue order 20.8.1984; Smt. Sughra Devi; Kannilal Jaiswal settlement; Khasra No. 2009/1; Rakba 3.03 acre; Ambikapur; Surguja; temporary injunction; coercive steps restrained; Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329; Surya Dev (supra); Section 115 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions dismissed; liberty reserved to the petitioners to file a civil suit along with an application for temporary injunction within 30 days; respondents restrained from taking coercive steps against the petitioners for 30 days. ¶68

Harivansh Dubey and Ors. Vs State Of C.g. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether writ petitions seeking a decree of permanent injunction (WPC No. 1966 of 2012) and a decree of declaration of title (WPC No. 2402 of 2018) over land in respect of which title is disputed are maintainable under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. +2 more

¶60

Court's answer

Where the title of the petitioner is itself in dispute, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit and not a writ petition; property disputes and 'pure property matters' should not be entertained under writ jurisdiction, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

In light of the reliefs sought in the two petitions and the settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, no case was made out for interference; both petitions fail and are dismissed.

¶68

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to file a civil suit along with an application for grant of temporary injunction within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶70
The respondent authorities were restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners for a period of 30 days.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) dismissed WPC No. 1966 of 2012 and connected WPC No. 2402 of 2018 filed by members of the Dubey family. The first petition sought mandamus restraining interference with possession and demolition over Khasra No. 2009/1, Rakba 3.03 acre; the second sought settlement of the land pursuant to an alleged Board of Revenue order dated 20.8.1984 in favour of Smt. Sughra Devi, mother of the petitioners, with reference to earlier Court directions of 5.12.2011 and 31.10.2012 and State circulars of 1956 and 1965. The respondents contended the land was nazul land which revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to settle. Observing that the prayers amounted to claims for permanent injunction and declaration of title, the Court held, relying on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, that where the petitioner's title is itself in dispute the remedy is a civil suit and not a writ petition, and pure property disputes should not be entertained under Articles 226/227. Petitions dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit with a temporary injunction application within 30 days; respondents restrained from coercive steps for 30 days. Petitioner no. 6 stood deleted in both matters (orders dated 17/09/2024 and 18/03/2024).

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.23 14:08:52 +0530

¶2

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1966 of 2012

¶6

1 - Harivansh Dubey And Ors S/o Lt Jagatdhari Dubey Aged About 74 Years R/o Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, Ps And Distt Sarguja At Ambikapur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Bhupnath Dubey S/o Lt Jagatdhari R/o Pratappur Naka, Ps And Distt Surguja At Ambikapur, Cg, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Virendranath Dubey S/o Lt Chhabinath Dubey R/o Pratappur Naka, Ps And Distt Surguja At Ambikapur, Cg, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

4 - Devendranath Dubey S/o Lt Chhabinath R/o Pratappur Naka, Ps And Distt Surguja At Ambikapur, Cg, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - Vinod Dubey S/o Lt Chhabinath R/o Pratappur Naka, Ps And Distt Surguja At Ambikapur, Cg, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

6 - Shailendranath Dubey Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 17/09/2024

¶12

--- Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State Of C.G. And Ors S/o Through Secretary, Revenue Deptt, Dks Bhawan, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶15

2 - Collector Distt Surguja At Ambikapur, Cg, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶16

3 - Nazul Officer Distt Surguja At Ambikapur, Cg, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶17

4 - Tahsildar, Distt Surguja At Ambikapur, Cg, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶18

¶19

--- Respondent(s)

¶20

WITH

¶21

WPC No. 2402 of 2018

¶22

1 - Harvansh Dubey S/o Late Jagatdhari Dubey Aged About 74 Years Bramhins By Caste And Resident Of Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶23

2 - Bhupnath Dubey S/o Late Jagatdhari Dubey Aged About 67 Years Bramhins By Caste And Resident Of Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶24

3 - Virendra Nath Dubey S/o Late Chhabi Nath Dubey Aged About 59 Years Bramhins By Caste And Resident Of Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶25

4 - Devendra Nath Dubey S/o Late Chhabi Nath Dubey Aged About 55 Years Bramhins By Caste And Resident Of Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶26

5 - Vinod Kumar Dubey S/o Late Chhabi Nath Dubey Aged About 52 Years Bramhins By Caste And Resident Of Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶27

6 - Deleted (Shailendra Nath Dubey) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 18/03/2024

¶28

--- Petitioner(s)

¶29

Versus

¶30

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶31

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

3 - Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶33

¶34

4 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶35

5 - Tahsildar Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶36

--- Respondent(s)

¶37

For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 4 in : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate WPC/2402/2018

¶38

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶39

Judgment On Board

¶40

19.2.2026

¶41

1) In WPC No. 1966 of 2012, petitioners have sought following

¶42

reliefs:-

¶43

10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession over the land in question Khasra No. 2009/1 Rakba 3.03 acre.

¶44

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent from taking any action of demolition against the constructing houses or any part of the petitioners.

¶45

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.

¶46

2) In WPC No. 2402 of 2018, petitioners have sought following

¶47

reliefs:-

¶48

(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant record pertaining to the petitioners case from the concerned

¶49

¶50

authorities right from year 1968.

¶51

(ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the State Government to decide and settle the land in the question as per earlier direction issued by this Hon'ble Court on 5.12.2011 & 31.10.2012 and further in light of circular issued in the year 1956 & 1965 by the State Government.

¶52

(iii) The State Government and the Collector be directed to settle the land upon the petitioners in the same way as it has been settled in the name of Kannilal Jaiswal.

¶53

(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court finds the petitioner entitled to, be also granted.

¶54

(v) Cost of the petition.

¶55

3) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that land in question was recorded under the names of forefathers of present petitioners prior to 1954 and Board of Revenue vide its order dated 20.8.1984 has ordered for settlement of land upon Smt. Sughra Devi, mother of present petitioners. He further submits that subordinate authorities of State Government are only required to pass an order of settlement in respect of land in question upon the petitioner, which has not yet been done. He prays to allow these petitions.

¶56

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would submit that land in question is nazul land and revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to settled the same in name of petitioners. They further submit that these petitions are

¶57

¶58

liable to be dismissed.

¶59

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶60

6) Admittedly, perusal of prayer made in WPC No. 1966 of 2012 would show that petitioners have filed this petition seeking decree of permanent injunction whereas prayer made in WPC No. 2402 of 2018 appears to be relief seeking decree of declaration of title.

¶61

7) It is well settled principle of law that where the title of the petitioner is itself in dispute, the appropriate remedy is a civil suit and not a writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Versus Rajendra Shankar Patil¹ while emphasizing power of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India has made it clear that property disputes and "pure property matters" should not be entertained under writ jurisdiction. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below :-

¶62

64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petition under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions.

¶63

1 . (2010) 8 SCC 329

¶64

¶65

We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown, that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.

¶66

We may also observe that in some High Courts there is tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev (supra) and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 of CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law.

¶67

As a result of frequent interference by Hon'ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, Hon'ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest Courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly.

¶68

8) In light of the foregoing discussion, the nature of reliefs sought in these petitions and the settled legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed reserving liberty in favor of petitioners to file civil suit along with

¶69

¶70

application for grant of temporary injunction within period of 30

¶71

days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶72