1. Injunction against construction on residential land — Revenue Tehsildar passed order — Challenge to Revenue Court's jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 28081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Neeraj Jain – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 2476 of 2022
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Surfuraj Khan
For the Respondents: Arham Siddique, Prakash Tiwari
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Surfuraj Khan
For the Respondents: Arham Siddique, Prakash Tiwari
Revenue Courts lack the statutory jurisdiction to grant interim or permanent injunctions, as such power is exclusively vested in competent Civil Courts under the Specific Relief Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly when the land in dispute is residential.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 34, 37, and 39 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts - Power to grant injunction - Revenue Courts lack statutory authority and jurisdiction to grant orders of injunction; such power is exclusively vested in the competent Civil Court. (Paras 4, 11, 12)
(B) Nature of Land - Jurisdiction - The jurisdiction of Revenue Courts is confined to agricultural or revenue assessed land and does not extend to residential land over which constructions have been erected. Once the property in dispute includes a permanent structure or built-up area, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court is ousted. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, owners of land bearing Khasra No. 2052/1 and 2052/2, challenged an order passed by the Tehsildar, Mahasamund, which granted an injunction sought by respondent No. 4 to restrain construction on the said land. The petitioners contended that the Revenue Court lacks jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief, as such powers are reserved for Civil Courts under the Specific Relief Act and the CPC. It was further established that the disputed land was residential in nature following findings in a previous civil suit.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Tehsildar acted in excess of jurisdiction. Since the subject land was determined to be residential property with permanent structures, the Revenue Court's jurisdiction was completely ousted.
Issues: Whether the Tehsildar can entertain an application seeking an injunction under the Specific Relief Act or pass an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC under the guise of a stay order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authority to grant temporary or permanent injunctions is exclusively vested in the jurisdictional Civil Court. Revenue Courts cannot grant injunctions, regardless of inherent powers, especially when the property is non-agricultural/residential.
Result: Petition Allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued Revenue Courts lack jurisdiction for injunction under Specific Relief Act, CPC, while respondents asserted Tehsildar had jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Revenue Courts lack jurisdiction over residential land with permanent structures; civil courts have exclusive power for injunction under Specific Relief Act and CPC. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Revenue Courts cannot grant injunctions over non-agricultural residential property; such power vests exclusively in civil courts under Specific Relief Act and CPC. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Petition allowed — entire proceedings and impugned interim order dated 25.4.2022 passed by Tehsildar quashed. (Para 15 )
6. Can a Revenue Court/Tehsildar grant an injunction order under the Specific Relief Act or CPC?
No. A Revenue Court/Tehsildar lacks jurisdiction and authority to grant an injunction, as such power is exclusively vested in a competent Civil Court. (Para 1 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. Does the jurisdiction of a Revenue Court extend to disputes over residential land with constructed houses?
No. Revenue Court jurisdiction is confined to agricultural or revenue-assessed land and does not extend to residential land with permanent structures or built-up area. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. What is the scope of inherent powers of Revenue Courts under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code?
The inherent power under Section 32 can be exercised only within the Code itself and not beyond it. It does not empower Revenue Courts to grant injunctions. (Para 12 )
C A V Order
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the proceedings
and the order dated 25.4.2022, passed by the Tehsildar, Mahasamund in Revenue Case No.202112120600051/B- 121/2021-22, whereby an application filed by respondent No.4 seeking an injunction against construction over the suit land belonging to the petitioners was allowed. According to the petitioners, such relief of injunction can only be granted by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 34 & 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The revenue authorities do not possess the statutory power
3 or jurisdiction to grant an injunction. Matter involving disputes of title and claims of injunction fall exclusively within the domain of the Civil Court and cannot be adjudicated by the Revenue Courts.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs :
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the entire proceeding (Annexure P/1 & P/2) and also the order dated 25/04/2022 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. 202112120600051/B- 121/2021-22, (Jagdish Prasad Agrawal V/s. Neeraj Jain & Another), by the respondent no. 3 and to issue a suitable writ in the nature of prohibition for preventing an order or decision being made which if made would
be subject to certiorari.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind
perusal.
10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.
3. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioners, are that they
are the owner and possession holder of land bearing Khasra No.2052/1, admeasuring area 0.131 hectare and Khasra No.2052/2, admeasuring area 0.198 hectare situated at Village Mahasamund, Tehsil and District Mahasamund. The petitioners derived ownership and title to the subject land by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 27.8.2021, on the basis of which Bhumiswami rights accrued in their favour over the said land. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed an application dated 9.12.2021
4 before respondent No.3 (Tehsildar), seeking an injunction to restrain the petitioners from raising further construction and to stop the ongoing construction over the subject land. The concerned Tehsildar entertained the application in separate proceedings and issued notice to the petitioners. Upon appearance, the petitioners filed preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the application, stating that the Revenue Courts lacks jurisdiction to grant an injunction or restrain construction. It was specifically contended that disputes involving title and injunctive relief fall within the domain of the Civil Courts. Such statutory powers are exclusively vested in the Civil Court under Sections 34 and 37 of the Specific Relief Act read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts to grant injunctions. It was further contended that respondent No.4 had already instituted Civil Suit No.27-A/2009, before the Second Civil Judge Class-I, Mahasamund, however, the said suit was dismissed. In the said preliminary objection, the petitioners pleaded that the subject land is non-agricultural in nature and contains a residential house. Hence, the Revenue Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application and further, any dispute pertaining thereto can exclusively be adjudicated by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It was further contended that respondent No.4 has no interest in the suit property, as he owns no land or structure adjacent to the land in dispute. However, when the preliminary objection was not decided by the concerned Tehsildar, the
5 petitioner/s approached this Court by filing WPC No.649/2022, wherein vide order dated 4.2.2022, ithe concerned Tehsildar was directed to consider and decide the said objection in a
