Chhattisgarh High Court halts Bilaspur land sale over fraud claims and undervalued stamp duty, ordering status quo on the prime Jarhabhata property

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 232 | 2026:CGHC:15688

April 7, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has intervened in a complex property dispute in Bilaspur, setting aside a lower court’s decision and ordering a status quo on a prime piece of Nazul land. The ruling comes after allegations surfaced that a sale deed was executed through fraud and conspiracy, potentially depriving family members of their rightful shares in a property valued at approximately 40 million rupees.

The case, presided over by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, centers on a 6,932-square-foot plot in the Jarhabhata area of Bilaspur. The dispute began when the children of the late Nirmal Kumar Samuel challenged a sale deed dated June 18, 2021, executed in favor of Atul Kumar Shukla. According to the plaintiffs, the land had been orally partitioned years ago, with different family members occupying specific portions for residential and commercial use.

The legal battle intensified when it was revealed that while the sale deed purportedly covered the entire property, the stamp duty paid by the buyer only reflected a fraction of the land’s market value. Specifically, the court noted that if the buyer had truly purchased the entire 644.237-square-meter area at the government’s guideline rate of 64,000 per square meter, the consideration should have been roughly 40 million rupees rather than the 6.5 million rupees actually paid. This discrepancy led the High Court to conclude that the transaction likely only pertained to a small 1,500-square-foot portion belonging to one of the sons, rather than the whole estate.

Further complicating the matter were claims of physical intimidation. The plaintiffs alleged that in November 2022, attempts were made to demolish their shops using heavy machinery, prompting them to seek an urgent temporary injunction. While the 2nd Additional District Judge in Bilaspur initially rejected their plea for protection, the High Court found that the balance of convenience heavily favored the plaintiffs, who have remained in “settled possession” of the land and have constructed homes and shops there.

The High Court also took note of a pending revenue inquiry regarding deficit stamp duty and allegations of government land encroachment by the parties involved. In light of these “doubtful” circumstances surrounding the transaction’s sanctity, Justice Guru ruled that the existing state of the property must be maintained until the trial court can reach a final verdict on the merits of the case.

Case Reference : In the case of MA No. 155 of 2025, the legal representatives are Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Pandey for the Appellants; Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Kesharwani for Respondent No. 1; Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan for Respondent No. 2; and Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, P.L. for Respondent No. 4/State