Interim Protection from Coercive Action Granted to Allow Pursuit of Alternative Remedies in Title Disputes

The Petitioner purchased private land via a registered sale deed. Subsequently, the Respondent authorities (Tehsildar and SDO) passed orders on 11.12.2025 and 22.04.2026 directing that the said land be entered into the Wajib-ul-Arz (record of customary village rights), effectively challenging the Petitioner's title

An appeal against these orders is currently pending before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue

Despite the pending litigation, the Tehsildar issued an eviction (bedakhli) warrant on 23.04.2026, served on 29.04.2026, ordering the Petitioner to vacate by 04.05.2026 under threat of forcible dispossession

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the eviction warrant and the underlying orders

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interim protection against eviction pending the adjudication of title disputes before the appropriate statutory forum.

2. Whether the respondent authorities acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by issuing an eviction warrant while a challenge to the underlying title order was pending.

The Court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies, holding that disputes regarding land records and title arising from revenue orders should first be adjudicated by the competent statutory forums—in this case, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue

The Court also recognized the equitable principle of protecting a party from "irreparable prejudice" and the necessity of adhering to the "principles of natural justice" when a summary eviction is threatened while legal remedies are being pursued

The Court observed that the core dispute involves the title and entitlement originally belonging to the Petitioner’s predecessor, Devadas, which is still under consideration by the competent Commissioner

Since the Petitioner’s claim to the land is based on a registered sale deed and the validity of the entry into the Wajib-ul-Arz is being contested in a pending appeal, the Court found it premature to allow forcible dispossession

The Court reasoned that to maintain the interest of justice, the Petitioner must be allowed a reasonable window (30 days) to seek a stay or specific relief from the Board of Revenue

By directing a temporary cessation of coercive steps, the Court reconciled the requirement for the Petitioner to use alternative remedies with the need to prevent the Petitioner from being rendered homeless or remedy-less before his case could be heard

The Court granted a limited period of protection, ordering that no coercive steps pursuant to the eviction warrant dated 23.04.2026 shall be taken against the Petitioner, provided the Petitioner approaches the competent forum within the stipulated time to seek further relief