Tehsildar Cannot Compel Document Production on a Private Party's Application, Chhattisgarh HC Rules
The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed revenue orders directing petitioners to produce Rin Pustika, holding the Tehsildar had no authority to compel document production at a private respondent's instance.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in a writ petition filed by two residents of Raigarh district, has quashed back-to-back revenue orders that directed the petitioners to produce their Rin Pustika (loan passbook in respect of agricultural land) at the instance of a private third party. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, sitting singly, held on 9 July 2026 that a Tehsildar has no authority or power under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code to compel a party to produce documents merely because another private party has applied for them. The Court further held that where no proceeding is pending before the Tehsildar, entertaining such an application is itself impermissible. At most, the officer may draw an adverse inference for non-production — compulsion is not an available remedy.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioners, Deepak Patnaik and his father Manohar Patnaik, are residents of Village Dansara, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh. Respondent No. 3, Padman Mahti, filed an independent application before the Tehsildar, Sarangarh, seeking a direction that the petitioners produce their Rin Pustika relating to the land held by them.
On 17 March 2021, the Tehsildar passed an order directing the petitioners to produce the Rin Pustika. The petitioners challenged this in a revenue revision. On 30 May 2022, the Additional Collector, Raigarh, passed an order in Revenue Revision Case No. 42/A-6/2020-21 affirming the Tehsildar's direction. It was this order of 30 May 2022 that the petitioners brought before the High Court, seeking its quashing and a direction restraining the Tehsildar from taking coercive steps against them in respect of the subject property.
The parties had been litigating the underlying dispute before both the Civil Court and the Revenue Court for a considerable time. One of the parties had also approached the Supreme Court, where certain orders had already been passed.
The Legal Issue: Scope of a Tehsildar's Power to Compel Document Production
The core question was whether a Tehsildar, acting under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, can issue a direction compelling a party to produce documents when the application for such production is made by a private respondent and no proceeding is pending before the Tehsildar at the time.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the order directing production of the Rin Pustika was entirely without authority. The Tehsildar, it was submitted, has no power under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code to compel document production at the instance of a private party. Even if documents were called for, the only permissible consequence of non-production would be an adverse inference — not a compulsory direction.
Respondents 1 and 2, represented by the Panel Lawyer, and Respondent No. 3, through his counsel, defended the order. They submitted that the Tehsildar had rightly directed production of the Rin Pustika and that the Additional Collector had correctly affirmed the direction. They urged that the High Court ought not to interfere.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Prasad examined the record and found the direction by the Tehsildar to be “entirely alien to the relevant provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.”
The Court identified two independent reasons why the impugned orders could not stand.
First, the Tehsildar simply had no authority to compel the petitioners to produce documents at the instance of a private respondent. Even where documents are called for, the officer's only recourse for non-compliance is to draw an adverse inference. The judgment is direct on this point: the Tehsildar “cannot compel the petitioners to file documents against their will.”
Second, and separately, the Court found that no proceeding was pending before the Tehsildar when the matter was entertained. Respondent No. 3 had filed only a standalone application asking for a direction to produce the Rin Pustika. The Court held that such an application is not capable of being entertained in isolation. A direction to produce a specific document can only be legally justified when an ongoing proceeding is already pending before the Tehsildar and the production of that document is necessary for adjudication in that proceeding. Neither condition was satisfied here.
The Court concluded that the Tehsildar had “manifestly acted against the provisions of law” in passing the order of 17 March 2021. Because the Additional Collector's order of 30 May 2022 merely affirmed a legally infirm foundation, it was held to be “equally erroneous.”
Order
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad quashed both the order dated 17 March 2021 passed by the Tehsildar, Sarangarh, and the order dated 30 May 2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.