The existence of an alternative remedy under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code precludes the court from intervening in the matter.

Order on Board

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date:

2025.08.01 11:06:54 +0530

31/07/2025

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition is being preferred against the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by Naib Tahsildar Raipur in Case No. RC No. 202110113800329/A-70/21-22 & the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional ofÏcer Revenue Raipur RAC No. 202301111000151/A-70-/22-23. The subject land i.e. the land situated in Khasra No. 1145, 1146/2, area 0.3800, 0.2750 hectare situated in Village: Bhatgaon, Patwari Circle No.60, Raipur-1, Tahsil and District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh belongs to the petitioners' ancestor Late Bhulau Ram Sonkar and now is actually owned by the petitioners in succession. But the same has been illegally mutated in the favour of Respondent No.1 without any legal instrument or Conveyance Deed of any Kind.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Respondent No.1 Roshan Lal Gavari submitted an application in the Court of Ld. Naib Tahsildar, Raipur under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 suppressing the fact that, a Civil Suit No.324 of 2024 was already pending before the Court of Ld. 5th Additional Judge of the Court of Civil Judge Class-1, Raipur, Chhattisgarh with regard to the ownership of the subject land i.e. the land situated in Khasra No. 1145, 1146/2, area 0.3800, 0.2750 hectare situated in Village: Bhatgaon, Patwari Circle No.60, Raipur-1, Tahsil and District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh seeking possession of the subject land from Respondent No.2 Man Sagar Sonkar @ Mansha Ram Sonkar alleging his illegal encroachment upon the said land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Accordingly, by filing the aforesaid application u/s 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959, the Respondent No.1 requested to remove the alleged encroachment made by the Respondent No.2 on the said land and to handover it's vacant possession back to him. Replying to the aforesaid application filed u/s 250 CGLRC 1959 the respondent No.2; Mansha Ram submitted before the Court of Ld. Naib Tahsildar, made a clear statement that the subject land was earlier jointly owned by Late Mantora Bai & Late Ram Avatar Sonkar which later came in succession to Late Ram Avtar Sonkar and thereafter to his wife & Children; Smt. Triveni Bai Wd/o Late Ram Avatar Sonkar and her Children. And, also that, the respondent no. I was never holding the possession of the subject land and that, the subject land was never taken by him on lease from respondent No.1, rather he has been cultivating the said land since last 25 years after taking it on rent from Late Mantora Bai and Triveni Bai Sonkar Wd/o Late Ram Avtar Sonkar and that he is now regularly paying the rent to Triveni Bai Sonkar which is a well known fact to Respondent No.1. Therefore, the question of the Respondent No.1 handing over the possession of the said land does not arise as the owner of the said land was Smt. Mantora Bai & now the owner is Smt. Triveni Bai & her children. The Respondent No.2 had been cultivating the above land with the permission of Smt. Mantora Bai/ Triveni Bai. Therefore, the application filed by the Respondent No.1 is not maintainable under the provisions of section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code , 1959.

4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite of the above, facts, the Court of Ld. Naib Tehsildar without adding the petitioners as a party in the matter has passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 passed by Naib Tahsildar Raipur in Case No. RC No. 202110113800329/A-70/21-22 which is totally illegal & beyond jurisdiction. The Respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Tahsildar the have moved an appeal before the Sub divisional ofÏcer Raipur which was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by Ld. Sub Division OfÏcer afÏrming the order of Ld. Tahsildar thereby approving the dispossession of Respondent No.2.

5. Learned couns