2025:CGHC:33361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2885 of 2016 Pramod Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Badri Prasad Gupta, Aged About 68 Years R/o Near Bagdi Nursingh Home, Sindhhi Bada, Burhapara, Raipur Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Vivek Gupta, S/o Late Vinod Kumar Gupta, Aged About 37 Years R/o Flat No 503, Raj Tower Bramhapuri, Raipur, Tahsil and Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattigarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 16/07 /2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 28.09.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur by which the revision filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has been allowed upholding the order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Nazul Officer. 2. The brief facts reflected from records are that respondent No. 1-Vivek Gupta moved an application under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before Nazul Officer, Raipur for mutation of the land in the name of all the legal heirs and successor of Late Badri ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.28 16:53:22 +0530 Prasad Gupta situated at Nazul Land Block No. 16, Plot No. 5/3, area admeasuring 2500 sq.ft.. It is the case of the respondent that the said plot has been purchased by his father Late Vinod Kumar Gupta in the name of his father namely Late Badri Prasad Gupta. It has also been contended that on the said plot, his father Late Vinod Kumar Gupta had constructed a house with his own income. Hence, respondent No. 1 is the owner and occupant of the said plot and the house constructed thereon. 3. It has been further contended that the petitioner had filed an application before the revenue authorities for recording of his name on the strength of Will executed by his father in his favour. On the said mutation application, the father of respondent No. 1 had raised objection that the said land should not be registered in the name of petitioner No. 2 as the said land has been purchased by him, therefore, Badri Prasad Gupta has no right or authority over it and he has no right to make a Will. It has also been contended that Late Badri Prasad Gupta has not executed any Will in the name of the petitioner- Pramod Kumar Gupta, as such, the said Will is a fake, forged and bogus Will. A suit is pending in the civil court regarding validity of the said Will, therefore, the mutation cannot be ordered. 4. It has been further contended that the name of the petitioner- Pramod Kumar Gupta was entered in the revenue records in place of Late Badri Prasad Gupta on the basis of Will. The said Will has been held to be bogus Will by the court of Second Additional District Judge Raipur in Civil Suit No. 56-A/2012 vide judgment and decree dated 07/11/2012 in case of Maniklal & others Vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta & others, therefore, the said Will has become void and ineffective, as such after the said decision of the case, Pramod Kumar Gupta is not the sole owner of the said land but all the legal heirs have become joint owners, though the possession of the property in question is with only heirs of Late Vinod Kumar Gupta. Therefore, as per the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, it is necessary in the interest of justice to delete the name of Pramod Kumar Gupta from the said plot and enter the names of all the said heirs in the revenue records and would pray that the names of all the heirs be mentioned in place of Late Badri Prasad Gupta in the said land. 5. The Nazul Officer vide order dated 12.06.2014 allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 holding that the Will has been declared null & void by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 56-A/2012, therefore, the Will in favour of the petitioner has no effect and the earlier order of mutation dated 05.07.2002 passed on the basis of Will is nullity and also directed to mutate the land in favour of all the legal heirs of Badri Prasad Gupta. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 12.06.2014 passed by Nazul Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code which has been dismissed by the appellate authority/Additional Collector, Raipur vide order dated 27.09.2014. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.09.2014 passed by the appellate authority, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur which has been allowed vide order dated 28.01.2016 by setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, respondent No. 1 preferred revision under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 28.09.2016 holding that the Will has been declared by the competent Civil Court as void having no consequences, therefore, the order dated 05.07.2002 is nullity. Hence, this petition has been filed assailing the order dated dated 28.09.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur by which the revision filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has been allowed upholding the order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Nazul Officer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record as the Will executed in favour of the petitioner on 25.08.1987 still subsist and no Court of competent jurisdiction has declared the Will as null and void. He would further submit that respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that he is in possession of the land in dispute whereas the petitioner is in possession of the land since 1987. He would further submit that the application of mutation of records was filed by the petitioner on the basis of registered Will executed in his favour, the Nazul Officer considering the entire documents and objection raised by the respondent, allowed the petitioner’s claim, thus, the respondent has no authority to dispute petitioner’s right over the property in question. He would further submit that the order dated 05.07.2002 has not been challenged by any of the party before any Court of law, therefore, the same has attained finality and the Board of Revenue has committed error in setting aside the order dated 05.07.2002 as the same was not challenged before any Court of law and would pray for allowing the petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 opposing the submission made by the petitioner would submit that the order passed by Board of Revenue is legal and justified as the Will has not been proved by the petitioner, as such the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 10. It has been informed that the parties are in possession of their respective share. It is not in dispute that the entitlement of the petitioners and the respondents to inherit the property in question, is dependable upon the validity of the Will which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition by this Court, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners and the respondents to raise their grievances regarding Will before appropriate forum who will decide the same in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun