2025:CGHC:55723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI WPC No. 5555 of 2025 Digitally signed by SYED 1. Rajendra Puri Goswami S/o Shri Bhagwan Puri Goswami ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.11.17 Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mahadev Pali Chandrapur, 18:44:46 +0530 Post- Balpur, Tahsil- Chandrapur, District Sakti C.G. Mo. No.

93296679962 ... Petitioner versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G.

2. Collector Sakti, District Sakti C.G.

3. Tahsildar, Chandarpur, District Sakti C.G.

4. Prakashchandra Agrawal S/o Kailash Agrawal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mahadev Pali Chandrapur, Post- Balpur, Tahsil- Chandrapur, District Sakti C.G.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 :Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

14.11.2025

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities.

10.2.That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 in revenue case no.202510311200005/B-121/2024-2025 between “Prakashchandra Agrawal vs.

Rajendra Puri Goswami”, whereby restraining to the petitioner for raising construction (Annexure-P/2) and further be please to quash the registration order dated 10.10.2025 in aforesaid revenue case (Annexure-P/1), is in the interest of justice.

10.3.That, any other relief/order which may be deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though he has claimed two reliefs in this petition, he is confining respondent No.4 submitted an application before respondent No.3 for removal of alleged illegal construction being raised by petitioner and action to be taken against petitioner for raising such illegal construction. Along with application, respondent No.4 has also filed an application for grant of injunction. Tahsildar registered said application as Case No.202510311200005/B-121/2024-25, issued notice to non- applicants and passed the order impugned granting injunction restraining the petitioner from raising construction. He submits that it is well settled that revenue Courts do not have power to grant injunction, it can be granted only by civil court and by none else. Hence, the order in form of injunction passed by respondent No.3 is without any jurisdiction and authority of law and therefore liable to be set aside. He places reliance on the order dated 3.2.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.683/2025 (Smt. Rukhamani Shrivas vs. State of CG &

ors).

3. Learned counsel representing respondent No.4 submits that he does not dispute legal submission made by learned counsel for petitioner with respect to jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to pass an order impugned granting injunction. He however submits that petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy of filing appeal against the order impugned and as such, present petition is not maintainable.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with writ petition.

5. The issue relating to jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to grant injunction in revenue proceeding has come up for consideration before this Court in the matter of Seraj Ahmed vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in 2017 (4) CGLJ 559, and relying on the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Maya Lalchandani (Mrs.) vs. Board of Revenue, 2009 (3) MPLJ 660, it was observed thus:-

“3. Order to grant injunction is surely vested in the jurisdictional civil court, revenue courts cannot grant order of injunction. Th