Order on Board

18.03.2024

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ(s), order(s), direction(s), by quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 in Revenue Case No.202308103900021/A-6/2022-23 (Annexure P-1) and to issue a suitable writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents No. 3 & 5 to conclude the revenue proceeding in Revenue Case No. 20238103900021/A-6/2022-23 within a time frame.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the Court below for kind perusal.

10.3 Any other relief, writ may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner moved an application under Sections 109 & 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Act, 1959), for mutation of land bearing survey No. 291/23, admeasuring 0.160 hectare (2135 sq. ft.) situated at Village Charoda, Tehsil Patan District Durg, on the ground that the land was purchased by the petitioner on 04.08.2023 from Anand Singh Chouhan through a registered sale deed.

3) Respondent No. 6 filed an objection to the mutation proceeding on the ground that respondents No. 6 and 7 have filed two civil suits bearing Civil Suit No.7-A/2023 (Sunil Singh v. Anand Singh & others) and Civil Suit No. 8-A/2023 (Kiran Singh v. Anand Singh & others) before the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Bhilai 03, District Durg, for declaring the Will deed dated 17.01.1985 as null and void and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction.

4) The learned Civil Court in Civil Suit No.8-A/2023 (Kiran Singh v. Anand Singh), vide order dated 12.09.2023 allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from alienating/creating third party interest till the final disposal of the civil suit.

5) Pursuant to the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Bhilai-03, in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2023, the Nayab Tahsildar, Bhilai stayed the further proceeding of mutation on the application moved by the petitioner in Revenue Case No. 202308103900021/ A-6 2022-23 vide order dated

30.11.2023, against which, the present petition has been filed.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Nayab Tehsildar, Bhilai exceeded its jurisdiction by usurping the power and jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court as the proceedings pending before the learned Nayab Tahsildar have not been stayed. He would further submit that when the learned Court below is not exercising its jurisdiction, or when the Court below is exceeding its jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise its power of superintendence contemplated under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. He would also submit that the petitioner was not a party in the pending Civil Suit No. 8-A/2023, therefore, the order dated 12.09.2023 would not be binding upon the petitioner. He argues that the mutation proceedings are entirely different and there is no provision to stay the proceeding as the mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of any person. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the matter of Prakash Narain v. Sharda Prasad (dead) through L.Rs. & others reported in 2019 (1) CGLJ 47, where it has been held that the Revenue Court is not the court subordinate to the Civil Court.

7) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the arguments put forth by Mr. Khan and submit that the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar is appealable before the SDO(R) according to Section 44 of the Code, 1959, thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable. They would further submit that the property involved in the present writ petition and civil suits is the same. Some part of the land of survey Nos. 291/1, 291/2 (new Survey No.291/23), admeasuring 2135 sq. ft. is r