SMT. USHA SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010400712026 2026:CGHC:44366
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5256 of 2026
AVINASH
SHARMA
1 - Smt. Usha Singh W/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About 66 Years
Caste Gond, R/o Village Vijaypur, Boirdadar Tahsil And District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.16
17:16:45 +0530
2 - Ku. Posheswari Singh Dau D/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About 44
Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Vijaypur, Boirdadar Tahsil And District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3 - Dhaneshwar Singh Dau S/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About 41
Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Vijaypur, Boirdadar Tahsil And District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4 - Ku. Lakshmeshwari Singh Dau D/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About
36 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Vijaypur, Boirdadar Tahsil And District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue
And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh
4 - The Tahsildar, Raigarh Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
5 - Shiv Kumar Dau S/o Late Bhubhut Singh R/o Devlas Chowk, Beladula,
Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
6 - Deepak Ekka @ R. Rafel Ekka Aged About 41 Years R/o Gopalpur Road,
Boirdadar, Vijaypur, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

2
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocate.
For State/ respondent : Shri Anil Pandey, GA.
For Respondent Nos.5
& 6
: Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
14/10/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of this petition,
petitioners seek appropriate protective directions in respect of the subject
property bearing Khasra No. 22/2 and 23/2, admeasuring 0.0225 hectare and
0.077 hectare, respectively situated at Village Vijaypur, R.N.M. No.01, Tahsil
and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh which are the subject matter of Civil Suit
No. 1/2026 and the application filed therein under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of
Civil Procedure Code.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the
aforesaid civil proceedings and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2
CPC, Tahsildar, Raigarh issued public notice / Ishtehaar dated 18.09.2026,
including Khasra Nos.22/2 and 23 / 2 in the proposed sale proceedings and
fixed 05.10.2026 for hearing of objections. The petitioners apprehend that
continuation of the said proceedings may result in alienation of the disputed
property and creation of third party rights, thereby prejudicing the petitioners
and frustrating the effective adjudication of the pending civil proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid
circumstances, petitioners seek expeditious disposal of the pending
application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and appropriate interim
protective directions for preservation of the subject property, including

3
restraint against any further construction, boundary/compound wall
construction, change of possession, demolition, physical alteration, sale,
transfer, alienation or creation of any third-party rights, until consideration of
the said application.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 submits that civil suit is pending
for consideration before the trial Court and counsel for the petitioner by
approaching this Court is initiating parallel proceedings. To support this
submission, counsel for the respondent would place reliance in the matter of
Qamruddin vs. Rasul Baksh and Another {1989 SCC OnLine SC 1}
whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the following in paragraph No.4:-
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are
surprised as to how the High Court entertained the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a
writ of certiorari and mandamus. When a suit is filed before
a civil court having jurisdiction to entertain the same it may
issue interim injunction and the party aggrieved may pursue
its remedy before the appellate court and if it is further
aggrieved it may invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the
High Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Ordinarily an
interlocutory order passed in a civil suit is not amenable to
extraordinary #xxxxxx jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution. More so when the aggrieved
party has not exhausted the remedy available to it under the
Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court in the instant case
failed to realise that the defendant-respondents had not
approached the High Court under Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. The question whether an interim
injunction should be granted or not is discretionary in
nature, although the exercise of discretion is regulated by
the principles set out in Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the

4
Code of Civil Procedure. If the order of injunction is passed
by a competent court having jurisdiction in the mater, it is
not permissible for the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution to quash the same by issuing a writ of
certiorari. In the instant case the learned Single Judge of
the High Court further failed to realise that a writ of
mandamus could not be issued in this case. A writ of
mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual unless
he is under a statutory duty to perform a public duty. The
dispute involved in the instant case was entirely between
two private parties, which could not be a subject matter of
writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
learned Single Judge ignored this basic principle of writ
jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution. There was no occasion or justification for
issue of a writ of certiorari or mandamus. The High Court
committed serious error of jurisdiction in interfering with the
order of the District Judge.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the
submissions made, this Court is of the view that the dispute relating to the
subject property is already pending consideration before the competent Civil
Court in Civil Suit No. 1/2026, along with the application preferred by the
petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In view of the remedy available to the petitioners before the Civil Court, this
Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for grant of the interim
protective directions sought for. The petitioners are, therefore, at liberty to
pursue their remedies before the Trial Court and seek expeditious
consideration of their pending application in accordance with law. The Trial
Court is expected to consider the said application on its own merits, having

5
regard to the pleadings and material available on record, without being
influenced by any observation made by this Court. It is made clear that this
Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute or on the
entitlement of the petitioners to the interim relief sought.
6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash