Chattisgarh High Court
Rajeshwar Paswan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14690
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1278 of 2026
1 - Rajeshwar Paswan S/o Late Rameshwar Paswan Aged About 77 Years R/o Tulsi
Awas, 6/27, Rajkishore Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2 - Manoj Paswan R/o Rajeshwar Paswan Aged About 48 Years R/o Tulsi Awas,
6/27, Rajkishore Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster
Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3 - Smt. Kalawati Paswan D/o Rajeshwar Paswan, W/o Shri Satyendra Paswan
Aged About 51 Years R/o Tulsi Awas, 6/15, Rajkishore Nagar, Tahsil And District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - Satyendra Paswan S/o Late Shri Sitaram Paswan Aged About 58 Years R/o Tulsi
Awas, 6/15, Rajkishore Nagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Power Of
Attorney Of Kalawati Paswan)
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Bhaskar Pyashi, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
{ Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi}
Order on Board
24/03/2026
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs :-
2
“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
the entire case record pertaining to Case No.
202308076400028 from office of Tahsildar / Naib Tahsildar
Takhatpur, District Bilaspur.
10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
the impugned order dt. 06/02/2024, passed by Naib Tehsildar in
Case No. 202308076400028, being nullity as the same has
been obtained by playing fraud which amounts to interference
with process of the Court.
10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the Naib Tahsildar to conduct an independent enquiry into the
authenticity of the alleged signatures of petitioners in the
Vakalatnama dated 24.08.2023 by obtaining Handwriting
Expert opinion etc.10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are
father and brother of Respondent No. 3 whereas respondent No. 4 is Power of
Attorney of respondent No. 3. He further submits that the petitioners and
respondent No. 3 are having joint holding of subject land. He further submits that in
pursuance of application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 178 of the
Chhattisarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity, ‘Code’), Naib Tahsildar,
Takhatur, District Bilaspur initiated revenue proceedings No. 202308076400028 and
after filing Fard Batwarnama, passed order dated 6.2.2024 granting 1/3rd share to
respondent No. 3. He next submits that in aforesaid revenue proceedings, the
petitioners were neither served any notice nor they have appointed any counsel,
despite that respondent No. 3 in connivance with the Revenue officials get
appeared some advocate, whose name has also not been mentioned in the order
sheets of said revenue case and fraudulently obtained the order dated 06.02.2024.
Hence, he prays that this petition may be admitted for hearing.
3. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 submits
that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the proceeding of said revenue
case or order dated 06.02.2024 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Takhatpur, District
Bilaspur, then he may file appeal before concerned Sub Divisional Officer
3
(Revenue) under Section 44 of the Code, 1959. He further submits that if the
petitioners wish to conduct any enquiry about alleged forged proceedings conducted
by Naib Tahsildar, Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, then he may make complaint to the
concerned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) or concerned Collector, therefore, this
petition deserves to be dismissed as threshold.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to
entertain instant petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. However, it
is made clear that if the petitioners have any grievance with regard to order dated
6.2.2024 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Takhatpur, Distrtict Bilaspur, then they may
appeal under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code and if any fraud has been
committed by respondent No. 3 or any other person during proceeding of aforesaid
revenue case and petitioners want any action to be taken against such arraying
person, then the petitioner may file appropriate application before concerned
Collector raising his grievance.
6. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed
of. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps, as has been
observed herein-above.
7. Certified copy of the impugned orders alognwith order-sheets filed by the
petitioner be returned after retaining photocopy of the same.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
AMIT
Digitally signed
by AMIT
Judge
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
DUBEY 2026.03.31
14:40:26 +0530
4({JUDGE_NAME})
JUDGEPSName
