-1- 2025:CGHC:20919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3769 of 2019 1 - Sitaram S/o Nankuram Aged About 62 Years R/o Mahalpara, Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashok Kumar S/o Nankuram Aged About 52 Years R/o Mahalpara, Saraipali, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Savitri Sahu (Died) Through Legal Heir As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 10-11-2021. 1.1 - Narsingh S/o Late Satyanarayan Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Mahalpara, Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Mrs. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.05.2025 1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), whereby the remand order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur dated 20.07.2017 was set aside, and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Saraipali dated 28.08.2014 was affirmed. 2) The brief facts of the case are as under:- A. The original respondent purchased land bearing survey No. 229 through two registered sale deeds dated 07.10.1965 area admeasuring 1600 Sq. Ft. and 20.01.1971 area admeasuring 3500 Sq. Ft. from Nanku. B. The respondent applied for mutation of the said lands before the Tahsildar which was allowed in favour of the respondent on 31.12.1991. C. On 22.06.2013, the petitioners filed a revenue appeal No. 16/A- 6/2013-14 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) for short [SDO(R)] along with an application for condonation of delay however the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected, consequently, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2014. -3- D. A second appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, in Appeal No. 40/A-6/2014-15. The Commissioner, vide order dated 20.07.2017, condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the SDO(R), Saraipali for fresh adjudication. E. The respondent, aggrieved by the order of remand, filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue issued notice and stayed the effect and operation of the Commissioner’s order on 16.08.2017. The Board of Revenue, vide order dated 26.08.2019 allowed the revision, set aside the remand order passed by the Commissioner, and affirmed the order of the SDO(R) dated 28.08.2014. 3) Mr. H. B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mutation application was moved by the respondent without disclosing the ownership of the land whereas no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner at that time. He argued that the Commissioner rightly remanded the matter to the SDO(R) to ensure a fair hearing. It was further submitted that the Board of Revenue committed a legal error in setting aside a well-reasoned order passed by the Commissioner, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that two plots were purchased by the respondent through registered sale deeds -4- executed in the years 1965 and 1971. During the pendency of the matter, neither the owner nor the legal heirs raised any objection. The respondent applied for mutation and the same was allowed by the Tahsildar on 31.12.1991. The appeal before the SDO(R) was filed after a delay of 22 years in 2013 without explaining the delay, and hence it was rightly dismissed. It is submitted that the Commissioner erroneously condoned the delay without any justification. The Board of Revenue correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction while setting aside the Commissioner’s order and upholding the order of the SDO(R). 5) I have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the records. 6) Admittedly, the order of mutation was passed by the Tahsildar on 31.12.1991 in favour of the respondent. No objection was raised by the owner Nanku Ram during his lifetime. 7) An appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the SDO(R) in the year 2013, nearly 22 years after the mutation order without explaining the delay. The delay in filing the appeal was not adequately explained therefore the SDO(R) dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner, however, condoned the delay and remanded the matter ignoring the period of inordinate delay. 8) The Board of Revenue held that once the mutation was effected based on -5- the registered sale deeds and remained unchallenged for over two decades, the condonation of delay without proper justification was not proper. 9) It is a settled law that a mutation does not confer title; however, unless the sale deeds are declared null and void by a competent civil court, the mutation order cannot be disturbed solely at the instance of the legal heirs of the earlier owner after 22 years. 10)In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11)However, it is made clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to the law before the competent civil Court, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim