Dismissed¶34

Khogendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Mar 2026WPC/4470/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue court jurisdiction — Naib Tahsildar lacks power to grant injunction/stay in civil or title dispute; injunction lies only before jurisdictional civil court. Writ under Article 226 against stay order dated 8-7-2024 of Naib Tahsildar, Bamhnidih, Janjgir-Champa; reliance on CGHC Coordinate Bench decisions in Baisahu Ram v. Khelawan Singh (WP227 No. 771/2013) and Smt. Vandana Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 235/2020); related civil suit 46A/2024 pending before Civil Judge Senior Division, Champa; impugned order set aside but petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; however, the impugned stay order dated 8-7-2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Naib Tahsildar is set aside; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed. ¶34

Khogendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Naib Tahsildar, Bamhnidih (respondent No. 3) had jurisdiction/authority to pass a stay (injunction) order dated 8-7-2024 in a civil/title dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent No. 4.

¶28

Court's answer

It is settled, relying on prior Coordinate Bench decisions, that the Naib Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass an injunction order in a civil dispute, particularly in a title dispute pending between the parties.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The impugned stay order (Annexure P-1) dated 8-7-2024 passed by the Naib Tahsildar deserves to be, and is hereby, set aside.

¶32

Key takeaways

Since the civil suit has already been filed by respondent No. 4 after the impugned order, the writ petition (which sought quashing of the entire proceeding and costs) is dismissed, with the dispute left for adjudication before the civil court; no order as to costs.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh (Single Judge — Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi J.), WPC No. 4470 of 2024, order dated 9-3-2026: On an application by private respondent No. 4 alleging illegal occupation of his land, the Naib Tahsildar, Bamhnidih directly passed a stay order dated 8-7-2024 (Annexure P-1). Relying on Baisahu Ram (died) through LRs Vs. Khelawan Singh (WP227 No. 771/2013, decided 24-7-2017) and Smt. Vandana Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 235/2020, decided 16-9-2021), the Court held it is settled that the Naib Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass an injunction order in a civil dispute, particularly a title dispute, power to grant injunction being vested in the jurisdictional civil court. The impugned order was set aside; since respondent No. 4 had meanwhile instituted Civil Suit No. 46A/2024 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Champa, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs and pending IAs disposed.

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK

2026:CGHC:11259

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.03.12 11:08:43 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 4470 of 2024

¶8

1 - Khogendra S/o Late Bhim Singh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Birra Tehsil - Bamnihdih P.S. - Birra District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Shivnarayan S/o Late Ramadhar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Birra Tehsil - Bamnihdih P.S. - Birra District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Devnarayan S/o Late Ramadhar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Birra Tehsil Bamnihdih P.S. - Birra District Janjgir -Champa (C.G.)

¶11

--- Petitioners

¶12

versus

¶13

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

2 - Collector Janjgir District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶15

3 - Nayab Tehsildar Sub- Tehsil Bamnihdih District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶16

4 - Maharam Kashyap S/o Late Mandal Kashyap Aged About 79 Years R/o Village - Birra Tehsil - Bamnihdih Police Station - Birra District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Chitendra Singh, Adv.
For Respondent No. 1 to 3	: Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Adv.

¶19

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶21

Order On Board

¶22

9-3-2026

¶23

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

¶24

“10.1 That, the respondents be directed by a writ to produce all record with respect to the proceeding initiated against the Petitioners for perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

¶25

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 08/08/2023(Wrongly mentioned as 08.07.2023 in impugned order) and may kindly quash the entire Proceeding initiated by Respondent No.3 (Nayab Tehsildar, SubTehsil:Bamnihdih, Distrcit:Janjgir-Champa C.G.)on the application filed by Respondent No.4.

¶26

10.3 The petitioners be awarded the cost of this petition.

¶27

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, petitioners and private respondent No. 4 are distant relatives. There is property dispute between them. The respondent No. 4 has filed an application before the respondent No. 3/Naib Tahsildar, Bamhnidih, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) against the petitioners that they are illegally occupying his land, based on which, the respondent No. 3 directly passed stay order dated 8-7-2024 (Annexure P-1), whereas it has no authority to pass such order. Hence, learned counsel submits that stay order may be quashed.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 referring to his reply, would submit that both the parties are distant relatives and there is a property dispute between them and respondent No. 4 has filed Civil Suit No. 46A/2024 (Maharam Kashyap -v- Firtinbai and ors.) which is pending consideration before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Champa.

¶31

Learned State counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would submit that, in catena of judgments, this Court has held that revenue court has no right to pass stay order in respect of civil dispute, however the civil suit has already been filed by respondent No. 4 subsequent to passing the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3, hence the parties should be relegated to the civil court for adjudication of their dispute.

¶32

In the case of Baisahu Ram (died) through LRs Vs. Khelawan Singh and ors. (WP227 No. 771/2013 decided on 24-7-2017) , the Coordinate bench of this Court has held that ‘Order to grant injunction is surely vested in the jurisdictional civil court, revenue courts cannot grant order of injunction’. Similar view has also been taken by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vandana Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPC No. 235/2020 decided on 16-9-2021) , in which various judgments have been discussed, thus, it is settled that, the Naib Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass injunction order in civil dispute, particularly in title dispute pending between the parties despite that, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has been passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Bamhnidih, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, whereas civil suit has also been filed by the respondent No. 4 as informed by learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Hence, the impugned order (Anexure P-1) dated 8-7-2024 deserves to be and is hereby set aside.

¶33

¶34