Tehsildar Cannot Compel Production Of Documents At Instance Of Private Respondents In Land Dispute: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a Tehsildar has no authority under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code to compel a party to produce documents merely on an application filed by a private respondent. The Court observed that, at the most, the Tehsildar may draw an adverse inference against a party for non-production of documents, but cannot compel their production against the party's will. [2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 72]

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, affirming an earlier order of the Tehsildar, directing the petitioners to produce the Rin Pustika relating to their land. The petitioners contended that the Tehsildar had issued the direction on an application filed by respondent No. 3 and had no authority to compel production of documents at the instance of a private party. The respondents supported the impugned orders and contended that the Tehsildar had rightly directed the petitioners to produce the Rin Pustika.

The Court observed that the parties had been litigating before the Civil Court as well as the Revenue Court and that one of the parties had also approached the Supreme Court. It held that filing an independent application seeking production of documents and the Tehsildar directing their production was entirely alien to the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

The Court observed that even if the petitioners were called upon to submit documents, the Tehsildar had no authority or power to compel their production at the instance of a private respondent. At best, the Tehsildar could draw an adverse inference against the petitioners for non-production, but could not compel them to file documents against their will.

“Even if the petitioners are called upon to submit their documents, the concerned Tehsildar has no authority or power to compel the petitioners to produce the same at the instance of a private respondent. At best, the Tehsildar may draw an adverse inference against the petitioners for non-production,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that had there been a pending proceeding in which production of the document was necessary for adjudication, such an order could have been legally permissible.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Tehsildar had acted contrary to law in passing the order dated 17.03.2021 and that the Collector had erred in affirming it. The Court quashed both the orders and disposed of the writ petition.

Case Title: Deepak & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPC No. 2932 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 72