RESHAMLAL DIWAKAR vs Kishan Kumar Diwakar

1

CGHC010214652026 2026:CGHC:44299
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2765 of 2026
1 - Reshamlal Diwakar S/o Late Itwari Aged About 51 Years R/o Village
Tribuwanpur Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.
2 - Ramesh Kumar Diwakar S/o Late Itwari Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Tribuwanpur Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Kishan Kumar Diwakar S/o Late Sitram Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Tribuwanpur Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.
2 - Jitan Kumar S/o Late Sitaram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Tribuwanpur Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.
3 - Jeetu S/o Late Sitaram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
Tribuwanpur Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.
4 - Pramila D/o Late Sitaram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village
Tribuwanpur Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.
5 - Savitri D/o Late Sitaram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
Tribuwanpur Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.

2
6 - Anita W/o Late Sitaram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village
Tribuwanpur Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.
7 - Sate Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Mungeli Tahsil And District
Mungeli C.G.
8 - Tahsildar Pathariya District Mungeli C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) No. 1, 4 & 6 : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqu, Panel
Lawyer.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
13/10/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may
kindly pleased to issue writ/order/directions quash the
proceedings of the Tahsildar, Pathariya under section 115
of the CGLRC 1959 in Revenue Case No.
202604250900002/A-6/2025-2026 with respect to the suit
property, in the interest of justice.
10.2 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may
think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, may also please be granted to the petitioner.”

3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has
been filed for quashing the proceedings pending before the
concerned Tahsildar on the ground that the issue of title is
pending consideration before the concerned Civil Court. As such,
the concerned Tahsildar does not have the authority either to
mutate the names in the revenue records or to pass any orders
regarding partition. Therefore, the proceedings pending
consideration before the concerned Tahsildar are required to be
quashed in view of the pendency of the civil suit before the
concerned Civil Court.
3. None appears on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3 and 5, despite
service of notice.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 4 and 6 submits that the
proceedings before the concerned Tahsildar were initiated prior to
the institution of the civil suit and, as such, the concerned
Tahsildar has the authority to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, which the Tahsildar is doing. However, he
has not disputed the fact that a civil suit seeking a declaration of
title and permanent injunction, as well as a declaration that the
revenue proceedings relating to partition are not in accordance
with law, on the ground that the respondents have no right to seek
partition of the property described in Schedule A, is already
pending before the concerned Civil Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the mutation

4
proceedings and the civil suit are entirely different in nature and
that the concerned Tahsildar is not deciding any issue relating to
title.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the material available on record, it appears that the dispute
regarding title, partition and permanent injunction is pending
before the concerned Civil Court. As such, the concerned
Tahsildar ought not to have proceeded further with the
proceedings and should have awaited the decision of the
concerned Civil Court. Accordingly, at this stage, the proceedings
initiated before the concerned Tahsildar, Pathariya, District
Mungeli, are not required to be continued and are hereby
quashed. However, after the decision in the civil suit, the parties
shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application before the
concerned Tahsildar, who shall decide the same in accordance
with law and in the light of the decision rendered by the Civil
Court, as the judgments and orders passed by the Civil Courts are
binding on the Revenue Courts. Since the petitioner has already
filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure before the concerned Civil Court, the petitioner
may pursue the remedy available before the said Court.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
8. The interim application filed in the matter is also disposed of, as

5
the writ petition itself has been decided by this Court.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge

Raghu Jat