1 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 Reserved on 28/04/2025 Delivered on 30 /06/2025 1 - Smt. Bilasani W/o Shri Amritlal Aged About 70 Years Caste - Kolta, R/o Village Mohgaon, Revenue Inspector Circle Sankara, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Praveen Pradhan S/o Shri Chandra Pal Pradhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Kishanpur, P.H. No. 31, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Raipur Division, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora, District 2 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tehsildar Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Bhoomisuta W/o Shri Prahlad Bhoi R/o Village Pandapara (Toshgaon), Tahsil Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Clubpara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Satyabhama W/o Late Shri Dhaniram Caste Kolta, R/o Village Gauriya, P.H. No. 21, Revenue Inspector Circle Sankara, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 8 - Gayatri Pradhan D/o Shri Chandrapal Pradhan R/o Village Kishanpur, P.H. No. 31, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 9 - Jaishri Pradhan D/o Shri Chandrapal Pradhan R/o Village Kishanpur, P.H. No. 31, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 10 - Smt. Nirbani W/o Shri Kailash Chandra Caste - Kolta, R/o Village Saldih, Revenue Inspector Circle Sankara, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 11 - Smt. Saibani W/o Shri Parmanand Caste - Kolta, R/o Village Chaarbhata, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 12 - Smt. Sindhulata W/o Shri Nandlal Caste Kolta, R/o Village 3 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 - Saraipatera, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 13 - Smt. Saroj W/o Shri Ravilal Caster Kolta, R/o Village Rikhadadar, Revenue Inspector Circle Sankara, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) C A V Order 1. Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging an order dated July 20, 2021, by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division. This order stems from a series of previous orders: one dated December 31, 2014, by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pithora, and another dated January 9, 2014, by the Tehsildar, Pithora. The case involves a dispute over mutation of land in Village Gauriya, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, based on a registered Will executed by Vishaka. The Tehsildar initially rejected the application but later ordered mutation in favor of all legal heirs of Late Vishaka under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 4 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 3. The Petitioners, being legal heirs of Late Smt. Vishaka W/o Shri Ramkrishna, claim equal rights over ancestral agricultural land admeasuring 7.04 hectares situated at Village Gauriya, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, and assert their entitlement to constitutional protections under Part III of the Constitution, including the Right to Equality. Respondent No. 6 filed an application for mutation under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, on the basis of a registered Will dated 13.02.2006 purportedly executed by Late Vishaka. The said application pertained to mutation of land bearing Khasra Nos. 23/1, 36, 42, 44, 55, 88, 106, 183/1, 198, 242, 280 & 293. The Learned Tehsildar, Pithora (Respondent No. 5), after due proceedings, passed an order dated 09.01.2014 rejecting the mutation application of Respondent No. 6 and directed that the land be mutated in the names of all legal heirs of Late Vishaka. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pithora. The SDO, vide order dated 31.12.2014, allowed the appeal, set aside the Tehsildar’s order, and directed that the name of Respondent No. 6 be recorded in the revenue records on the strength of the Will. Subsequently, the Petitioners and other legal heirs filed an 5 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division. However, the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 20.07.2021, affirming the findings of the SDO and upholding mutation in favor of Respondent No. 6. Challenging the legality and correctness of the orders dated 31.12.2014 and 20.07.2021, the Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of ‘Will’ the Revenue Courts cannot direct for mutation. The validity of Will is doubted as such the Civil Courts are having jurisdiction to declare the Will after proper appreciation of evidence in accordance with relevant rules, also Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Revenue Court are not having the power/jurisdiction/authority to mutate the name of any party on the basis of Will even if the witnesses were examined before the said court, it cannot enter into the matter and pass the order of mutation in favour of any person. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Tehsildar after appreciation of evidence i.e. the first revenue Court has considered the 6 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 entire aspect of the matter in its true perspective and has rightly passed the order by dismissing the application for mutation only on the basis of Will holding that it has not been proved that the property was exclusive one and further the property in question is an ancestral property, as such all the parties have equal share/right on the said property and Respondent No.6 is owner of only 1/8th part of the ancestral property. He further submits that the SDO (Revenue) as well as the Additional Commissioner have not considered the vital aspect of the matter and passed the order of mutation only on the basis of Will executed in favour of Respondent No.6 which is palpable illegal and liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 submits that the property in question was received by Vishaka from his father as such it is an exclusive property of her for which she executed the Will deed in favour of Respondent No.6 and on that ground the SDO (R) as well as Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division have passed the well-merited order which need no interference of this Court. It has been categorically stated that Respondent No.6 has got her name mutated in the revenue records as she has 7 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 rightly moved an application before the Tehsildar and the same has illegally been rejected vide order dated 09.01.2014, thereafter, the same has been challenged before the SDO (R) vide order dated 31.12.2014 and has directed for mutation of name of Respondent No.6 on the basis of Will deed and the order passed by the SDO (R) has been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 20.07.2021 which has rightly been passed by the SDO (R) and Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, therefore, this petition is bereft of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties and perusing the relevant documents, the core issue in this case is whether the revenue authorities had the jurisdiction to order the mutation of the land based on the Will and whether the Will was validly executed and could be acted and examined by the Revenue Courts. 7. In this regard, the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 1 is relevant. Paragraph 9 of the judgment is reproduced herein below: 1. Reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 8 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 “In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court." 8. It is well-settled that revenue courts have limited jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning the mutation of land titles, but they are not authorized to determine the validity of a Will. The validity of the Will can only be properly adjudicated by a civil court, which has the jurisdiction to assess the evidence and apply the relevant provisions of law, particularly Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. These Sections provide the necessary legal framework for the proof of a Will and the examination of the witnesses to establish its authenticity. 9. In the present case, the Tehsildar rightly dismissed the application for mutation, as the Will had not been sufficiently proved. The property in question is ancestral, and therefore, under the applicable law, all legal heirs have 9 Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022 an equal right to the property. The SDO (Revenue) and the Additional Commissioner, however, overlooked this vital aspect and passed the orders based only on the Will, which was not proved in accordance with the statutory requirements. 10. Based on the foregoing analysis, the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated December 31, 2014 (Annexure P/2) and order dated July 20, 2021 (Annexure P/1) by the Additional Commissioner are liable to be and are hereby set aside. The Tehsildar’s order dated January 9, 2014 (Annexure P/3), is affirmed, and the mutation shall be carried out only in accordance with the valid proof of the Will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA