1 2025:CGHC:20346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2031 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari Aged About 63 Years At Present Address- Chamber No. 150 High Court Bar Association Building High Premises Bodri Bilaspur (C.G.), R/o Village Chandanu Tahsil Bemetara, Patwari Halka No. 00012, District Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Veena Sharma W/o Shri Suresh Prasad Sharma, D/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chandanu Tahsil Bemetara, Patwari Halka No. 00012, District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Kiran Pandey W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, D/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Chandanu Tahsil Bemetara, Patwari Halka No. 00012, District Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Ratna Shukla W/o Late Shri V.N. Shukla, D/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Chandanu Tahsil Bemetara, Patwari Halka No. 00012, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Kumud Sharma W/o Shri Hemant Sharma, D/o Late Shri Ramkumar Tiwari Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Chandanu Tahsil Bemetara, Patwari Halka No. 00012, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, (Revenue) Mantralaya Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Revenue Department Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Bemetara (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.05.03 17:06:41 +0530 2 4 - S D M, Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Bemetara District Bemetara (C.G.) 6 - Umesh Kumar Lahari, R.I. Jhal And Kusami Tahsil- Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 7 - Patwari Halka No. 00012 Village- Chandanu, Ri Jhal Tahsil- Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) 8 - Patwari, Halka No. 00015 Village- Jhiriya, Ri Kusami Tahsil- Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 02.05.2025 1 Heard Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Santosh Bharat, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. 2 The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief/s:- “1. This Hon'ble Court may set aside/quash order dated 09/04/2024 (ANN P-5) and the Tehsildar/Revenue Inspector may be directed to proceed as per provision of Chhattigarh Land Revenue Code and decide the case on provision of Sec 110(5) of Code on statement on oath filed by petitioner. 3 2. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities, that the name of petitioner No. 1 has been mutated in revenue record in place of Late shri Ramkumar Tiwari per ANN. P-1 prayed in his application/Information and affidavits of petitioners 2 to 4. 3. That the State through Principle Secretary (Revenue) may be directed to issue necessary directives to Revenue Officers for compliance and guiding Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar/Revenue Inspector to follow proper procedure and not to conduct trials in mutation proceedings so that applicants are not involved in tedious, long drawn and unnecessary technicalities and orders in mutation proceedings. 4. This Hon'ble Court issued the direction to higher authority take departmental action against Tahsildar his illegal performance against clear provision of law, and kindly direct to pay cost of petition and compensation his malicious manner. 5. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 3 By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, Bemetara, by which, the Tahsildar has dismissed the proceedings drawn under 4 Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’) on the application of the petitioners on the basis of incomplete and erroneous application where the application of the heirs is not even mandatory. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on account of death of Ramkumar Tiwari (original land owner), the legal representatives have moved an application for mutation, which was filed way back on 02.11.2023, but the concerned Tahsildar has not been decided the same since last two years and surprisingly, the same has been dismissed on 09.04.2025 because of incomplete and erroneous application. He further submits that the provisions of Section 110 (6) of the Code provides that no case under this Section shall be dismissed in the absence of any party and shall be disposed of in order of merit. However, the Tahsildar without deciding the proceedings under Section 110 of the Code on merits dismissed the proceedings itself for want of prosecution. 5 Learned counsel for the State would submit that after the dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution due to incomplete documents filed by the petitioners, the petitioners should approach the authority concerned by filing an application for modification/restoration of the said proceedings, hence, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 5 6 I have heard both the parties and perused the order dated 09.04.2025. 7 From perusal of the said proceedings, it appears that the proceedings drawn on the initiation of the petitioners under Section 110 of the Code, however, the same has been dismissed due to the incomplete/erroneous application though there is a specific provision under Section 110 of the Code which provides as follows:- “(5) The Tahsildar shall, after giving the interested persons a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such further inquiry as he may deem necessary, pass orders relating to the mutation and shall make necessary entries in such other relevant land records including the khasra and map of the village, as the case may be. The patwari shall verify the records by correcting them within prescribed time period, after which the Tehsildar shall file the case. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 35, no case under this Section shall be dismissed in the absence of any party and shall be disposed of in order of merit.” 8 In view of above, the Tahsildar has to continue with the proceedings to decide the same on merits, hence, the dismissal of the proceedings only on the ground that the petitioners have filed incomplete/erroneous application, is contrary to the provisions 6 prescribed under Sections 110 (5) and 110 (6) of the Code, 1959, hence, the order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P/5) is liable to be and is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar to proceed with the matter as per the provisions contained under Section 110 of the Code, 1959 in accordance with law and the same be decided on its own merits expeditiously preferably within a maximum period of 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9 The petitioners are also granted liberty to file relevant documents in support of their application. 10 With the aforesaid observation/directions, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh