1 2025:CGHC:49340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3419 of 2019 1 - Deleted (Satpal Singh Babra) (Died) Through LRs 1.1 - Manjeet Babra Wd/o Late Satpal Singh Babra, Aged About 67 Years R/o House No. C 9/6, Harshit Ratna, Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Arshraj Singh Babra S/o Late Satpal Singh Babra, Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. C 9/6, Harshit Ratna, Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Sonal Solahi D/o Late Satpal Singh Babra, Aged About 39 Years R/o Charan Nivas Opp Ingle Chawl, Gandhinagar, Itarsi District Itarsi (M.P.) 1.4 - Annu Osan D/o Late Satpal Singh Babra, Aged About 33 Years R/o Plot No. 99, Block-B, Neta Ji Jagar, Nagpur, District Nagapur (MH) 2 - Ikbal Singh S/o Late Vidhyal Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Devi Ganj Road, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gurupal Singh S/o Late Vidhyal Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Devi Ganj Road, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jitendra Kaur W/o Sardar Avtar Singh Aged About 70 Years D/o Late Vidhyal Singh R/o 27 Kholi Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Patrinder Kaur W/o Jan Bahadur Singh Virdhi Aged About 62 Years D/o Late Vidhyal Singh, R/o Opposite Railway Station Rau Indore ( M P ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Ambikapur District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devraj Singh S/o Late Prabhudayal Singh Babra Aged About 49 Years Occupation - Farmer , R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 1 ), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Ritu Kaur D/o Late Prabhudayal Singh Babra Aged About 40 Years R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 2) 4 - Rashminagi D/o Prabhudayal Singh Babra, Aged About 38 Years R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattigarh. ( Applicant No. 3 ) 5 - Navraj Singh Babra S/o Late Prithviraj Singh Babra Aged About 42 Years R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No. 4) 6 - Smt. Surendra Kaur Wd/o Late Prithviraj Singh Babra Aged About 60 Years R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ( Applicant No. 5 ), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.09.26 14:32:23 +0530 2 7 - Jasraj Singh Babra S/o Jograj Singh Babra Aged About 50 Years R/o Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, Thana / Tehsil - Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 02 ), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Nitiraj Singh Babra S/o Jograj Singh Babra, Aged About 50 Years R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 03), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Bhupendra Singh S/o Late Ranbir Singh Babra, Aged About 50 Years R/o Gudri Bazar Babra House, Ambikapur, Tehsil - Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. ( Non Applicant No. 01 ), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Sanjay Agrawal and Ms. Bhagyashree Pale, Advocates. For State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.2,7&8 Shri Rakesh Tiwari on behalf of Shri Vineet Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.3&4: Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent 5,6&9 : Shri Varun Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 25.09.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are legal heirs of late Vidyal Singh, against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Surguja, place at Ambikapur, in Revenue Appeal No.1007/A-6/2017-18, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for impleading them as party respondents in the Revenue Appeal filed by the respondents No.2 to 4, was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Surguja. 2. Facts in brief are that, in the year, 2012-13 the respondents made two applications for mutation of their names in the revenue records of the subject property situated at Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja which was registered as Revenue Case No.35/A-6/2012-13 and 38/A- 6/2012-13. In that applications, the present petitioners were not made as party/non-applicant. The application filed by the present respondent 3 No.9-Bhupendra Singh was rejected by the Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, however, the application filed by the present respondents No.2 to 4 was allowed by the Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, vide order dated 30.11.2015. The respondent No.9-Bhupendra Singh challenged the order dated 30.11.2015 by filing an appeal before the Collector, Ambikapur. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2018; the order passed by the Nazul Officer dated 30.11.2015 was set aside and it was directed to mutate the names of all the legal heirs of late Kishun Singh Babra who was the ancestor of the party. The order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the Collector, Ambikapur was further challenged by the respondents No.2 to 4 before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, by filing a Second Appeal. In that Second Appeal pending before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, the present petitioners made an application for impleading them as party respondents on the ground they have a title over the subject property and without making them as party the orders have been passed by the Nazul Officer as well as the Collector and therefore, they may also be heard before passing any order. The application dated 26.11.2018 filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, was rejected vide order dated 03.09.2019 which is subject matter in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are title holder of the subject property and necessary party in the proceeding. The father of petitioners namely late Vidyal Singh purchased the subject property in the year, 1950 in a court auction proceeding and right and title of the father of the petitioners have been 4 affirmed in the judgment dated 15.03.1980 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in First Appeal No.32/1976. Therefore, the right of the petitioners cannot be denied over the subject property, however, without making them as party/non-applicant, the present respondents had filed an application before the Nazul Officer for mutation of their names over the subject property which has been rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that after passing of judgment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the petitioners did not make any effort to get their names mutated over the subject property in the revenue records and therefore the present respondents have filed their application based on the entries made in the revenue records and the petitioners are not the party since very inception of the proceeding. Therefore, their application is rejected. She would further submit that merely on the basis of entries made in the revenue records, the title of the persons whose names have been recorded in the revenue records is not confirmed. In the First Appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the ancestors of present respondents were party and they were having every knowledge that a decree was passed in favour of ancestor of father of present petitioners. Therefore, they ought to have made the present petitioners as party respondents in the proceedings before the Nazul Officer, however they deliberately have not made them as party. As and when the petitioners came to know about the proceedings, they approached before the Commissioner by making their application for impleading them as a party/non-applicant in the proceeding and to hear them. Therefore, the rejection of the application is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside and the petitioners 5 may be directed to be impleaded and the respondents may be directed to implead the petitioners as party/non-applicants in the appeal pending before the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents opposes the submissions made by the petitioners and have submitted that the petitioners are having alternative remedy of filing Revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the order impugned. However, they have not availed the said remedy available to them. Since 1980 they did not make any effort to get the subject property mutated in their names in the revenue records. Therefore, they cannot claim their right over the subject property. Based on the entries in revenue records, the present respondents have made their application for substitution of their names in the revenue records which has rightly been decided by the authorities concerned and inter-se dispute is pending before the respondents. Therefore, the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners and the same is not liable to be interfered. 5. The counsel for respondents would also submit that in the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court there is no specific mention of the details of property on which the decree was passed in favour of the father of the petitioners and in absence thereof the property could not be identified. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 03.09.2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for impleading them as 6 party respondents has been rejected. It is not in dispute that a decree was passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in favour of late Vidyal Singh with respect to Schedule-A property annexed with the plaint of that case. Whether or not the property is one and the same in First Appeal No.32/1976 and in the present writ petition, are the subject matter for determination by the authorities concerned who are dealing with the mutation proceedings. The only question herein is whether or not the petitioners are necessary party in a proceedings before the Commissioner or Revenue Court? 8. From perusal of the judgment dated 15.03.1980 (Annexure P/6) it transpires that late Vidyal Singh purchased the property in the year, 1950 in a court auction proceeding and the judgment has been passed in his favour with respect to plot and house at Ambikapur sold by late Kishun Singh Babra to Vidyal Singh. It is nowhere mentioned that the said judgment dated 15.03.1980 was challenged or set aside by any superior court. From perusal of document Annexure P/2 it transpires that the name of late Sardar Vidyal Singh was mutated as the holder of the property of plot No.1163/1, total area 0.40 Acre, situated at Ambikapur. In the application made by the petitioners before the Commissioner Surguja Division, they only claimed that they may be impleaded as party respondent and they may be heard. The claim of the present petitioners with respect to impleading them as party respondent, in the opinion of this court, may not prejudice the rights of the parties. If the petitioners are succeeded in making their case on merits, they would get benefit and if not succeeded in making out their 7 case, they would be defeated, but at present, admittedly they are only praying for making them as party respondents in the proceeding. 9. It is settled law that merely entries in the revenue records does not confer any title upon the party. However, on the basis of the same, the application of the petitioners have been rejected by the Commissioner. 10. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Surguja has committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioners for making them as a party respondent in the appeal pending before it. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.09.2019 is set aside. The application filed by the petitioners (Annexure P/5) before the Commissioner, Suguja Division, Surguja, is allowed. The respondents are directed to implead the petitioners as party respondents in the appeal pending before the Commissioner, Suguja Division, Surguja and they may be provided an opportunity of hearing in the appeal in accordance with law. The Commissioner, Suguja Division, Surguja, is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law on its own merits after hearing the respective parties with respect to their claims. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder