Revenue Courts Lack Jurisdiction Over Injunction Proceedings Concerning Residential Properties With Permanent Structures

The petitioners challenged the order dated 20 June 2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Bilaspur, and the consequential order dated 18 September 2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue.

They contended that the Tehsildar lacked jurisdiction to entertain proceedings and grant injunctive relief concerning a residential property, and also raised objections regarding manual revenue proceedings, the Board’s supervisory jurisdiction, and the alleged unauthorized use of the Chairman’s seal by Members of the Board of Revenue.

During the hearing, the parties relied upon the High Court’s decision in Neeraj Jain & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPC No. 2476 of 2022, decided on 7 September 2026, which held that Revenue Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain injunction proceedings concerning residential property having a permanent structure.

Whether the Tehsildar had jurisdiction to entertain proceedings and pass an order granting or relating to injunctive relief concerning a residential property having a permanent structure thereon?

Whether the order dated 18 September 2025 passed by the Board of Revenue could be sustained when it arose from proceedings initiated before the Tehsildar without jurisdiction?

Whether the petitioners’ additional challenges concerning manual proceedings, the constitution and authorization of the Board, and the alleged use of the Chairman’s seal required separate adjudication?

The Court applied the principle that Revenue Courts are confined to matters within their statutory revenue jurisdiction and cannot entertain disputes concerning residential properties with permanent structures where the substantive relief sought is injunction or restraint.

Such relief lies within the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, Sections 37 and 39 of that Act, and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court relied on Maya Lalchandani (Mrs.) v. Board of Revenue, Seraj Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh, Vandana Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, and Neeraj Jain, which establish that the procedural application of the CPC or the inherent powers of a Revenue Court cannot enlarge its substantive jurisdiction to grant injunctions.

It also recognized that a writ petition may be entertained despite an alternative remedy where the impugned proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, consistent with Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks.

The Court found that the jurisdictional challenge to the Tehsildar’s order was directly governed by Neeraj Jain, which held that disputes involving residential property with a permanent structure, particularly where the relief is effectively injunctive, fall exclusively within the domain of the Civil Court.

Since the foundational proceedings before the Tehsildar were without jurisdiction, the order dated 20 June 2022 could not be sustained.

The Board of Revenue’s order dated 18 September 2025, being consequential upon and arising from those proceedings, was likewise vitiated and could not remain in force.

Having granted relief on the jurisdictional issue, the Court considered it unnecessary to separately adjudicate the allegations concerning the Chairman’s seal, Board constitution, authorization, and related administrative or disciplinary directions.

It quashed and set aside the proceedings before the Tehsildar, Bilaspur, culminating in the order dated 20 June 2022, and also quashed the consequential order dated 18 September 2025 passed by the Board of Revenue.

The Court expressly left open the parties’ claims concerning title, ownership, and possession, permitting them to pursue remedies before the competent forum.

The additional reliefs relating to the alleged misuse of the Chairman’s seal and the constitution or authorization of the Board were not separately adjudicated.

No order was made as to costs.