1 2025:CGHC:312-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 874 of 2024 1 - Abhay Ram Tiwari S/o Late Bhulau Prasad Tiwari Aged About 90 Years R/o Village Newnara, Tahsil Bhimori (New Tahsil) Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prafull Sharma S/o Abhay Ram Tiwari Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Ramdeo Ward, Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Division Durg 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue, Saja 4 - Tahsildar Bhimori (New Tahsil), Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Ramanuj Tiwari S/o Late Bhulau Prasad Tiwari Aged About 85 Years R/o Village Nevnara Tahsil Bhimori (New Tahsil) Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Near Azad Chowk, Karuna Pandey Street, Amapara, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Ramanuj Tiwari Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nevnara, Tahsil Bhimori (New) Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Present Address, Near Azad Chowk, Karuna Pandeystreet, Amapara, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for the Respondent/State. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4247/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1997 an exchange deed was executed between the petitioner and one Deojani Tiwari with respect to the piece of land bearing No. 970 area 0.07 hectare and Khasra No. 735 area 0.07 hectare situated at village Nevnara, PH No. 33, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara. Deojani Tiwari died on 24.06.2023. The petitioner was owner of the land Khasra No. 735 area 0.07 hectare and Deojani Tiwari was owner of Khasra No. 970 area 0.07 hectare. After registration of the exchange deed, the petitioner who was the government servant, could not mutated his name in the exchanged Khasra No. 970 area 0.07 hectare. After long lapse of time he moved an application before the Tahsildar for mutation of his name. A report was called from the Revenue Inspector in which Deojani Tiwari had made an objection but the Tahsildar, vide its order dated 30.06.2017 allowed the application of the petitioner and directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records of the land Khasra No. 970 area 0.07 hectare. 4. Deojani Tiwari had challenged the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by Tahsildar by filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Saja, 3 District Bemetara. The SDO Saja vide its order dated 16.10.2017 set aside the order of the Tahsildar. The said order was further challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Durg, Division Durg and the Commissioner, Durg vide its order dated 25.05.2018, partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the matter was remitted back to Tahsildar Berla to decide the case afresh after hearing both the parties and considering the documentary evidence and revenue records. The order passed by Commissioner, Durg further challenged by Deojani Tiwari before the Board of Revenue by filing a revision under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Board of Revenue has allowed the revision filed by the Deojani Tiwari vide its order dated 26.05.2023 and the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Durg and the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by Tehsildar were aside aside and the order passed by the SDO, Saja dated 16.10.2017 was upheld. After passing of the order of Board of Revenue dated 26.05.2023, Deojani Tiwari has died on 24.06.2023. 5. In the writ petition it is submitted by the petitioners that the exchange deed executed between the parties was registered deed and the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is absolutely perverse and contrary to the record. The authenticity of the registered exchange deed could not be examined by the revenue records and they ought to have accept it as to genuine document and should have passed the order accordingly. The said exchange deed was not challenged by the Deojani Tiwari, therefore, the writ petition ought to have been allowed by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the order passed by Board of Revenue, yet the writ petition is dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous on the facts as well as on the law. The revenue Courts are bound to keep to record update on the basis of registered deed of transfer of the property. In the present case registered exchange deed have not been challenged by any of the parties and it is still alive and the revenue Courts 4 ought to have allowed the mutation in the name of petitioners, yet the writ petition has been dismissed, therefore, by allowing the writ appeal the order passed by learned Single Judge may be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order and would submit that it is the litigation between the private parties and the order passed by the revenue courts as well as by the learned Single Judge is on the basis of documents submitted by them. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as writ petition. 9. From perusal of the impugned order as well as the material placed in the writ petition as well as writ appeal, it is quite vivid that the Deojani Tiwari had moved an application for recording of her name in the revenue records of Khasra No. 735 area 0.07 hectare and her name was recorded in the revenue records by the order of Tahsildar passed in revenue case No. 2/a-5/2002-03, order dated 11.12.2002. The said order dated 11.12.2002 has not been challenged by the petitioners in any further proceedings and it attains finality. The exchanged deed was executed in the year 1997, name of the Deojani Tiwari was recorded in the revenue records by the order dated 11.12.2002 passed by the Tahsildar and the said order have not been challenged in any proceedings. The petitioners have moved their application for mutation sometimes in the year 2016. It also reflects from the order passed by learned Single Judge that the petitioner is trying to project that he is the title holder of the land of Khasra No. 735 but there is no documentary evidence available on record that he was recorded owner of Khasra No. 735 rather from the record it appears that Deojani Tiwari was the owner of the property. The learned Single Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the material placed before it in the writ petition, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners. From perusal of the entire documents annexed with the appeal as well as writ petition. We are also in the agreement with the finding recorded by the 5 learned Single Judge and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is based on proper appreciation of evidence and facts placed on record. 10. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case and there is no fault in the impugned order. 11. Considering, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned and the writ appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok