SMT. USHA SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010397472026 2026:CGHC:44357

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AVINASH
SHARMA
WPC No. 5166 of 2026
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date:
2026.10.16
17:13:48 +0530
1 - Smt. Usha Singh W/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About 66 Years
2 - Ku. Posheswari Singh Dau D/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About 44 Years
3 - Dhaneshwar Singh Dau S/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About 41 Years
4 - Ku. Lakshmeshwari Singh Dau D/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About 36
Years
5 - Kartikeshwar Singh Dau S/o Late Prahlad Singh Dau Aged About 28 Years
All are R/o Village Vijaypur, Tahsil And Distt- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur, (C.G.)
2 - The Collector, Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.)
3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.)
4 - The Tahsildar, Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh Distt- Raigarh (C.G.)
5 - Kheersagar Netam S/o Ganga Prasad Netam Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Gotiapara / Gudeli, Tahsil Sarangarh- Bilaigarh Distt- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.)
6 - Talakeshwar Singh Dau S/o Late Chetan Singh Dau Aged About 68 Years R/o
Ward No. 21, Belaudula Devdwar Chowk Raigarh, Tahsil And Distt- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Jai Kumar Dewangan, Advocate.
For State/respondent : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA.
For Respondent Nos.5
& 6
: Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board

2
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. 21/4, admeasuring 0.405 hectare, situated at
Village Vijaypur, Patwari Halka No. 54, R.N.M. Boirdadar, Tahsil & District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 19/2026 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, the private Respondents are allegedly undertaking/continuing
construction and causing physical interference over the subject property,
which may alter its nature, character and physical status and may create a
fait accompli, thereby causing irreparable loss and injury to Petitioners. He
submits that petitioners have further learnt that Respondent No.5 has
initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar, Raigarh in relation to the proposed
sale/alienation of various parcels of land, including the subject property
bearing Khasra No.21/4, as reflected from the public notice/Ishtahar issued in
the said 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
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

3
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
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

4
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. 19/2026, 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
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

5
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