1 2025:CGHC:40110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2377 of 2022 1 - Chandrahas Sao S/o Late Ganeshram Sao, Aged About 59 Years R/o Shringar Gift House, Polsaypara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Santara Badi, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chandra Mohan Sao S/o Late Ganeshram Sao, Aged About 52 Years R/o Shringar Gift House, Polsaypara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o. Santara Badi, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Miss. Shri Vijay Laxmi Sao D/o Late Ganeshram Sao, Aged About 56 Years R/o Shringar Gift House, Polsaypara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Santara Badi, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Subhadra Devi Sao D/o Late Ganeshram Sao, W/o Shri Bisahu Singh Sao, Aged About 64 Years R/o. Danganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court- Raipur, Through Its President, Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Upper Commissioner, Raipur Division, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Division Officer (Revenue), Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Shrijata Bhattacharya W/o Shri Abhijit Goswami, Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 59 A/7, Nehru Nagar, West Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Tapshri Goswami W/o Shri Sanjay Goswami, Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 59 A/7, Nehru Nagar, West Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Malay Shrivastava and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate For Respondent(s) For State : : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased issue appropriate writ or order to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./R/14/A- 6/415/2012 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case from respondent no. 2, respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief in favour of petitioners looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of order dated 12.04.2022 3 passed by respondent no. 1 in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./R/14/A- 6/415/2012 whereby set aside the order dated 30.08.2012 passed by respondent no. 2, order dated 23.08.2011 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 15.11.2010 passed by respondent no. 4 and remanded back the case before the respondent no.. 4 to decide afresh on merits after conducting enquiry on the title of the petitioners. 3. Learned State counsel fairly admitted that title of the land will be decided only by the competent Civil Court and not by the Revenue Court. He further submits that appreciation of facts and documents has been considered by the Revenue Court and has rightly set-aside the order of the SDO as well as Commissioner and remanded back the matter to the Tahsildar. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent no. 5 vehemently argued that the name of vendor of the petitioners, namely, Ghusu S/o Jaisi was not recorded in any land records as on the date of sale, i.e. 29.01.1975. as such not mutation could have been ordered on the basis of the sale deed by such person without jurisdiction. He further contended that the petitioners have made application for mutation after about 33 years. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Para 9 of the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) reads as under: 9- vr% mijksDr rF;]= foospuk ,oa fof/kd vk/kkj ds ifj.kkeLo:i izdj.k esa vij vk;qDr] jk;iqj laHkkx }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 30- 08-2012 vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] nqxZ }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 23-08- 4 2011 ,oa rglhynkj] nqxZ }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 15-11-2020 fof/kfoijhr gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSa rglhynkj dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os vukosndx.k ds vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k esa mudks izkIr LoRo ds laca/k esa fu;ekuqlkj lE;d tkap dj] izdj.k dk xq.knks”k ds vk/kkj ij fujkdj.k djsaA iqujh{k.k vkaf’kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSa 7. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the impugned order that Revenue Board has exceeded the jurisdiction and directed the Tasildar to decide the title of the suit land. Section 109 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 only deals with acquisition of rights to be reported and Section 110 of the Code, 1959 deals with mutation of acquisition of right in Field Book and other relevant land records. There is no provision under Section 109 and 110 of the Code, 1959 to decide the title over the suit land. Title of the suit land will be decided by the competent Civil Court only. Hence, the order passed by the Revenue Board (annexure P/1) is illegal, erroneous and not maintainable in the eyes of law. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Board with a direction to the Revenue Board that after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned and affected persons in respect of suit land, decide the matter of revision under Section 109 and 110 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 in accordance with law/rules/ regulations. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima