1 2025:CGHC:41351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4384 of 2025 1 - Subhash Kumar, Authorised Signatory S/o Late Shri Kailash, Aged About 49,, R/o Ramnagar, Azad Chowk, Near Santosh Kirana, Supela, Bhilai, Tah. And District Durg, C.G. M. Aadhar No. 9149 8031 7131, Authorised Signatory Of Chouhan Housing Company, Corporate Office, First And Second Floor, Chouhan Estate, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Raipur, Collectorate Office, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director, Town And Country Planning, Regional Officer, Raipur C.G. 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 5 - Sanjay Bajpai,builders Pvt. Limited, Through Director Yogeshwar Shukla, S/o Late Mahaveer Shukla, Address Third Floor, Krishna Complex, Jail Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief(s);- Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.20 17:32:38 +0530 2 10.1hat this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 09/07/2025 (Annexure P/1) the same being illegal and without jurisdiction. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction thereby forbearing the respondents from interfering in the vested civil right of the petitioner & continuous possession and further construction over the subject property. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the form of mandamus thereby directing that the have any authorities does not revenue jurisdiction to decide the subject matter of the present dispute. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, direction thereby directing independent high level inquiry against the respondents with respect to the illegality committed in the subject matter of the writ petition and thereafter taking of strict action against the guilty persons, as per law. 10.6 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and om circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also be granted to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and beyond jurisdiction exercise of power by the revenue court whereby the concerned revenue authority has encroached upon the jurisdiction of the civil court by deciding the title dispute vide order dated 09/07/2025, despite existence of duly registered sale deed. The learned Revenue Authority has set aside the order of mutation passed in accordance with law, after a delay of more than 10 years without there being any explanation for the delay and further the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the constitutional and fundamental rights of the petitioner, therefore the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Sri Suresh K.N. vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors., in wpc No. 3773 of 2025 wherein it has been held in paragraph 4 & 6 as under:- 4. This Court is of the considered view that the discretion vested in the revenue authorities under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is inherently limited when dealing with changes to the khata. Once a petitioner acquires valid title over immovable property through a registered sale deed, a mandatory duty arises for the revenue authorities to effect changes to the khata strictly in accordance with the conveyance as reflected in the registered document. The rights acquired under a registered sale deed are legally enforceable, and the petitioner is not required to independently notify the revenue authorities about the acquisition of rights in the immovable property. Rather, it is the responsibility of the registering authority to notify the jurisdictional Tahsildar, triggering the necessary steps for khata transfer as per the statutory framework. 6. In the present case, the General Power of Attorney was executed not by a single individual but by multiple joint family members, including the husband, widow, and children, all of whom collectively authorized one S.S. Vinayaka Murthy to sell the petition property. The mere fact of the death of one of the executants does not automatically terminate the GPA unless otherwise stipulated, and the impact of such death on the GPA's validity is a matter to be determined by the competent civil court. The role of revenue authorities remains strictly administrative and procedural. They are bound to act within the confines of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, without delving into complex questions of law or title disputes. Consequently, the orders passed by the 4th respondent -Tahsildar affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, remain valid and enforceable. The challenge raised against these orders holds no merit within the scope of the revenue authorities' statutory responsibilities. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Rajeep Kapoor Vs. Mohd. Sarwar Khan and Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine MP 2239, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held in para 9 as under:- “9. Sub Divisional Officer gave a finding that there was dispute of title, therefore, Revenue Court could not pass an order for mutation. Learned Sub Divisional Officer failed to consider the fact that there was no dispute regarding execution of 'Will' by petitioner before the Court of Naib Tehsildar. 'Will' was admitted by son of testator to have been signed and inked by his father. Attesting witnesses of 'Will' also gave evidence that 'Will' is executed by testator. There was no dispute of title between the parties before the Tehsildar. Dispute of title was for the first time raised before the appellate authority by filing objection to mutation by petitioner. There was no dispute of title before Naib Tehsildar and once the facts of execution of 'Will' has been admitted in evidence by petitioner he cannot be allowed to take a U-turn and dispute the 'Will'. The Principle of estoppel is arising out of doctrine of equity. Principle of estoppel is a principle of equity and once a fact is admitted by a party before the Court then in subsequent proceedings he cannot be allowed to deny the said fact by leading evidence. Therefore S.D. O wrongly held that there was dispute between the parties on basis of inadmissible evidence.” 5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that there is an alternative remedy is available to petitioner to file revision before the concerned Commissioner where the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. On perusal of the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the concerned SDO (R ), it transpires the fact that the concerned SDO (R) has set 5 aside the order of mutation which was in favour of the petitioner after a delay of more than 10 years. 8. Considering the submission of the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the SDO(R) before the concerned Commissioner. As such, the petitioner is at liberty to file revision before the concerned Commissioner and the petitioner is also at liberty to raise his all grievances on the ground of limitation/ maintainability . 9. It is made clear that, this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. 10.Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti