-1- 2025:CGHC:43570 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2265 of 2019 1 - Rupnarayan Lal S/o Mohan Lal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Sitapur, Police Stastion And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Savita D/o Mohan Lal Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Post Office, Near Bus Stand, Dharamjaigarh, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Ramkaliya W/o Mohan Lal Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Sitarpur, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajesh Kashyap S/o Late Krishna Murari Kashyap R/o Village Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Chhattisarh. 2 - Mukesh Kashyap S/o Late Krishna Murari Kashyap R/o Village Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Chhattisarh. 3 - Rakesh Kashyap S/o Late Krishna Murari Kashyap R/o Village Shankargarh, Police Station And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Chhattisarh. 4 - The Board Of Revenue Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Tehsildar Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 1) This writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 01.06.2019, passed in Revenue Case No. R.N./16R/A-6/310/2018 by the learned Board of Revenue, whereby in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). 2) Mr. Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioners, would make the following submission:- A. The petitioners are the grandsons/granddaughter of the late Pyarelal, whereas respondents No.1 to 3 are the grandsons of late Ambika Prasad. Ambika Prasad and Mohanlal were the sons of the late Pyarelal. An order of mutation was passed in their favour by Gram Panchayat Kesla and Gram Panchayat Sitapur on 12.12.1998, pursuant to which their names were duly entered in the revenue records. B. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed an application under Sections 109 and 110, read with Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, before the Tehsildar, Sitapur. The said application was rejected on 03.08.2015 on the ground that the resolutions with regard to mutation were passed by -3- Gram Panchayat Kesla and Sitapur on 12.12.1998, and therefore, the application for mutation was not found maintainable. C. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2015, respondents No.1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sitapur, who allowed the appeal vide order dated 28.07.2016, thereafter, the petitioners challenged the said order before the Commissioner, who allowed the appeal vide order dated 28.09.2017. Against the order of the Commissioner, respondents No.1 to 3 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed on 01.06.2019, thereby setting aside the order of the Commissioner. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. D. Once the order of mutation was passed in favour of the petitioners in the year 1998, and their names were duly entered in the revenue records, the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for mutation moved by respondents No.1 to 3 in the year 2014. E. The Board of Revenue committed an error of law in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Commissioner. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to allow the petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that though the petitioners have taken a stand that a resolution was passed by Gram Panchayat Kesla and Gram Panchayat Sitapur on 12.12.1998 in favour of the petitioners but no record of such a resolution is available either in the office of the Gram Panchayat Kesla, Gram Panchayat Sitapur, or in the office of the Tehsildar. It is further submitted that in the absence of the authentic records, the Sub-Divisional Officer rightly allowed the appeal of respondents No.1 to 3, and -4- the Board of Revenue rightly affirmed the same. It is contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Learned State counsel has supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 6) The application filed by respondents No.1 to 3 before the Tehsildar dated 10.03.2014 was rejected on the ground that the order of mutation was passed in favour of the petitioners by the concerned Gram Panchayats on 12.12.1998, and their names were accordingly entered in the revenue records. However, both the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue have held that records of the resolution are not available with Gram Panchayat Kesla, Gram Panchayat Sitapur, or the office of the Tehsildar. In the absence of such records, the entries in the revenue records made pursuant to the alleged resolution appear doubtful. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and without entering into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the Tehsildar, Sitapur, for a fresh consideration of the issue of mutation. 8) Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.06.2019, passed by the Board of Revenue, and orders passed by other revenue authorities are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar, Sitapaur, to decide the issue of -5- mutation afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing. Both parties shall be at liberty to place documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. 9) Since the initial application for mutation was filed in the year 2014, the Tehsildar is directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim