Dismissed¶¶57

Kanshiram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jul 2026WPC/3777/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPC No. 3777 of 2026; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; jurisdiction of Nayab Tehsildar/revenue authorities to entertain proceedings for implementation of a civil court decree; partition and mutation application by decree-holder; Revenue Case No.202606213600013; order dated 17.12.2025; decree of First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baloda Bazar; Khasra No. 11, village Khamharia; 1/16 share; Class-I heirs of Ramdayal Sahu; paragraph 25 of Writ Appeal No. 443 of 2018; no ground to interfere at interlocutory stage; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The contention of the petitioners that the concerned revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction or authority to initiate proceedings for implementation of the civil decree cannot be accepted. ¶¶55

Kanshiram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the revenue authorities (Nayab Tehsildar) have jurisdiction to initiate and adjudicate proceedings arising out of execution/implementation of a civil court decree, or whether such power vests exclusively with the Executing Civil Court. +1 more

¶¶39

Court's answer

The contention of the petitioners that the concerned revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction or authority to initiate proceedings for implementation of the civil decree cannot be accepted.

¶¶55

Ratio / Principle

The decree passed by the competent Civil Court itself specifically provides that the plaintiff shall obtain separate partition and mutation of his share through due process of law.

¶¶55

Key takeaways

The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 443 of 2018 has dealt with the issue and laid down the course to be followed in such matters; the Court endorsed that ruling (paragraph 25 thereof permitting a decree-holder to apply to the competent revenue authority for partition on the basis of a declaration decree in the absence of contrary directions by the Civil Court).ratio¶¶55
Since the proceedings initiated before the concerned Tehsildar are in furtherance of the decree passed by the competent Civil Court and are yet to attain final adjudication, the Court finds no ground to interfere at this stage.ratio¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Single Bench, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) — WPC No. 3777 of 2026, decided 21.07.2026 — Writ petition by defendants Kanshiram and Eman Sahu challenging proceedings before the Nayab Tehsildar, Balodabazar (Revenue Case No.202606213600013), including the order dated 17.12.2025, as wholly without jurisdiction, contending that after the civil court's decree only the Executing Civil Court could enforce it. The Court noted that a decree of the learned First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baloda Bazar declared respondents Vijay Kumar and Meena Class-I heirs of deceased Ramdayal Sahu, each entitled to 1/16 share in Khasra No. 11 (3.292 hectares, village Khamharia), with separate possession obtainable through due process, and that the decree-holder had applied to the Tehsildar for partition and mutation. Placing reliance on paragraph 25 of the Division Bench decision in Writ Appeal No. 443 of 2018 (decree-holder may file an application before the competent revenue authority for partition of holdings assessed to payment of revenue on the basis of a decree of declaration of title, in absence of any contrary direction by the Civil Court), and holding that the proceedings were in furtherance of the decree and yet to attain final adjudication, the Court found no ground to interfere at that stage and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

CGHC010273592026

2026:CGHC:31062

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3777 of 2026

¶7

1 - Kanshiram S/o Late Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Eman Sahu S/o Late Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Collector Balodabazar District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Nayab Tahsildar Balodabazar District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Vijay Kumar S/o Shiv Lal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), Current AddressVillage Malpuri, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Meena D/o Shiv Lal Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), Current Address- Village Malpuri, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶16

¶17

6 - Madho S/o Late Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶18

7 - Kaliram S/o Late Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶19

8 - Haricharan Son Late Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶20

9 - Hemin D/o Late Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶21

10 - Pileshwar Son Late Itwari Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶22

11 - Pooja D/o Late Itwari Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶23

12 - Anita D/o Late Itwari Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶24

13 - Melan W/o Late Itwari Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Amera, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶27

For Petitioner :- Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate For State :- Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A.

¶28

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

21.07.2026

Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-

¶33

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record pertaining to the subject matter.

¶34

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the execution proceedings pending before the respondent No.3/Nayab Tahsildar in Revenue Case No.202606213600013.

¶35

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the execution proceedings pending before the respondent No.3/Nayab Tahsildar in Revenue Case No.202606213600013.

¶36

10.4 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Nayab Tehsildar is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled position of law. It is contended that after passing of the decree by the competent Civil Court, the only remedy available to the decree-holder was to initiate execution proceedings before the concerned Civil Court for enforcement of the decree and for obtaining the fruits thereof. However, instead of approaching the Executing Court by filing an appropriate execution application, the petitioner has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities by filing an application before the concerned Nayab Tehsildar. It is submitted that the Nayab Tehsildar has entertained such proceedings,

¶38

¶39

mutated the case and, after participation of the parties, has passed the order dated 17.12.2025, and the matter is presently pending consideration before the said authority. Learned counsel submits that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to initiate or adjudicate proceedings arising out of execution of a civil court decree, as such power is vested exclusively with the Executing Court and not with the revenue authorities. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated before the Nayab Tehsildar are without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed.

¶40

Learned State counsel submits that after passing of the judgment and decree by the competent Civil Court, if any specific direction has been issued by the said Court, the concerned parties are required to comply with and follow such directions in their true letter and spirit. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities cannot be exercised contrary to the directions issued by the competent Civil Court. Learned State counsel further submits that the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the aforesaid aspect in Writ Appeal No. 443 of 2018 and, in paragraph 25 thereof, has issued specific directions in this regard, which are required to be kept in view while considering the present controversy. It is contended that, in the present case, the concerned Nayab Tehsildar has rightly initiated proceedings on an application filed by the decree-holder for implementation of the decree passed by the competent Civil Court, and such

¶41

¶42

proceedings cannot be said to be contrary to law or without jurisdiction.

¶43

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶44

Para 25 of the Writ Appeal No. 443 of 2018 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶45

“25.In view of the above, looking to the facts of the case we conclude that the decree holder can file an application before the competent revenue authority for partition of holdings assessed to payment of revenue to Government on the basis of a decree of declaration of title and entitlement of his share in absence of any direction by the Civil Court in its decree.”

¶46

From perusal of the record, it appears that a decree has been passed against the present petitioners by the Court of learned First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, wherein the following decree has been passed:-

¶47

“1. It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs Vijay Kumar and Meena are Class-I heirs of deceased Ramdayal Sahu and each of them is entitled to 1/16 share in the suit land bearing Khasra No. 11, total area 3.292 hectares, situated at village Khamharia, P.H.N. 17, Tahsil & District Baloda Bazar.

¶48

¶49

2. The plaintiffs shall be entitled to obtain separate possession of their respective shares through due process.

¶50

3. The defendants are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment, possession or enjoyment of the plaintiffs' respective 1/16 shares, and from allenating, encumbering or creating third-party rights over the same.

¶51

4. The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of their suit.”

¶52

From perusal of the record, it appears that a decree has been passed by the learned First Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, against the present petitioners, wherein a specific direction has been issued to the plaintiff that he shall be entitled to obtain partition of the property through due process of law.

¶53

In pursuance of the aforesaid decree, the plaintiff has submitted an appropriate application before the concerned Tehsildar seeking partition and mutation of the land, along with other ancillary proceedings. The said proceedings were duly initiated by the concerned Tehsildar, wherein notices were issued to the present petitioners and other concerned parties. The matter is presently pending consideration before the competent revenue authority for final adjudication.

¶54

¶55

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the concerned revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction or authority to initiate such proceedings cannot be accepted. The decree passed by the competent Civil Court itself specifically provides that the plaintiff shall obtain separate partition and mutation of his share through due process of law. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 443 of 2018 has also dealt with the issue and laid down the course to be followed in such matters.

¶56

10.Since the proceedings initiated before the concerned Tehsildar are in furtherance of the decree passed by the competent Civil Court and the same are yet to attain final adjudication, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the proceedings at this stage.

¶57

11.Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

¶58

12.No order as to costs.

¶59

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶60

Vishakha

Kanshiram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanshiram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranadhar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tejprakash Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Ranmohan Maravi

Ayush College of Polytechnic Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harilal Chouhan Vs Shubham @ Shobha Chouhan

Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Nursing Vs Indian Nursing Council