1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2826 of 2019 1 - Uday Raj Parekh S/o Late Mangal Chand Parekh Aged About 61 Years R/o A-17, Wallfort City, Ring Road 1, Bhatagaon, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Board Of Revenue Through Secretary Circuit Court- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner Durg Region, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Magistrate Khairagarh, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Naib Tehsildar Sub Tehsil- Gandai, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Kamla Bai W/o Late Banau Lodhi R/o Village Dhodha Tehsil Chuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 7 - Rajesh Lodhi S/o Late Banau Lodhi R/o Village Dhodha Tehsil Chuikhadan District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 8 - Gunesh Lodhi S/o Late Banau Lodhi R/o Village Dhodha Tehsil Chuikhandan District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 9 - Utin Bai D/o Late Banau Lodhi R/o Village Singhanpuri Tehsil Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 10 - Sevti Bai D/o Late Banau Lodhi R/o Village Koraiya Tehsil Chuikhadan District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 11 - Premi Bai D/o Late Banau Lodhi R/o Village Dholiya Kanhar, Tehsil Chuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. For Respondents No. 6 to 11 : Mr. Shweta Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 24-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- i. To call for the records of the case from the Respondent Authorities. ii. To Set-Aside and Quash the Impugned Order dated 15th April 2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 and upheld and reaffirm the Order 12.06.2015 passed by the Respondent No.5, Order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Respondent No.4 and Order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Respondent No.3 dismissing the Mutation Application of the Respondent No.6 to 11. iii. Pass any other relief order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice, along with cost of the proceedings. 2) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner purchased land bearing Khasra No. 52/2 ad-measuring 0.80 acre situated at Village– Dhodha, Tehsil–Chuikhadan, District–Rajnandgaon (C.G.) from Late Banau Lodhi through a registered sale-deed dated 23.05.1990 for a price consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Possession of the subject property was not handed over to the petitioner by respondents No. 6 to 11 [legal representatives of Late Banau Lodhi]; therefore, Civil Suit No. 2-A/2008 was instituted by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, for the declaration of ownership and possession. The civil suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013 on the ground of limitation, and it was never challenged before the higher forum; thus, it attained finality. After the dismissal of 3 the civil suit, respondents No. 6 to 11 moved an application under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Naib Tehsildar, Gandai, for mutation and the same was rejected vide order dated 12.06.2015. The order passed by the Naib Tehsildar was challenged by respondents No. 6 to 11 before the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Khairagarh in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.09.2015. The order passed by the SDO (R) was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Durg, in the second appeal, and it was also dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2016. Against the order dated 15.12.2016, respondents No. 6 to 11 preferred a revision before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue and the same was allowed vide order dated 15.04.2019, which is the impugned order in this petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the suit property through a registered sale-deed; therefore, he has the right to remain the owner in revenue records. He further submits that an application was moved by the petitioner for mutation by virtue of the registered sale-deed and the same was allowed way back in the year 1990 and after long 25 years, respondents No. 6 to 11 moved an application for mutation after the dismissal of the civil suit filed by the petitioner for possession and the said application was rightly rejected by the Naib Tehsildar, Gandai. He contends that findings recorded by the Naib Tehsildar, Gandai, were affirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer (R), Khairagarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Durg, but the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue reversed those findings vide ex-parte order dated 15.04.2019. He further contends that the validity of the sale-deed cannot be examined by the revenue courts, whereas the 4 Board of Revenue decided the issue of title on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioner claiming therein possession has been dismissed. He argues that the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner has not been challenged by respondents No. 6 to 11, and it is still in existence. He prays to set aside the order dated 15.04.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 6 to 11 submits that the possession of the suit property was never handed over to the petitioner; therefore, a suit was filed seeking relief of declaration of ownership and possession, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013. She further submits that the possession of the suit property rests with respondents No. 6 to 11, therefore, an application was moved for mutation after the dismissal of the civil suit. She contends that the Board of Revenue has not decided the issue of title, but rather, on the basis of findings recorded in the civil suit, passed an order in favor of respondents No. 6 to 11. 5) Learned State counsel supports the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7) Notably, the petitioner purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 23.05.1990, and the consideration was paid. Possession was never handed over to the petitioner; therefore, a civil suit was filed, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013 on the ground of limitation. Respondents No. 6 to 11 never challenged the validity or genuineness of the sale-deed executed in 5 favor of the petitioner; thus, it is still in force and effect. Registered sale-deed confers the right in favor of the purchaser according to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 8) Though the petitioner is not in possession of the suit property, but as his name was entered into revenue records, he has the right to retain the entries in the revenue records by virtue of the sale-deed, unless the sale-deed is declared null and void by the competent court. In the present case, the Naib Tehsildar, SDO(R), and Divisional Commissioner gave concurrent findings, but the Board of Revenue held that the Tehsildar was under an obligation to examine the validity and genuineness of the sale-deed while passing the order of mutation. It is true that while passing an order under the provisions of Sections 109 and 110 of the Code, 1959, the Tehsildar has to examine the right of the party, who has moved the application but at the same time, the validity of a document or its genuineness cannot be examined by Tehsildar and it is the duty of the competent civil courts. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 15.04.2019 is bad in the eyes of the law and the same is hereby set-aside. 10) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.28 13:57:24 +0530