1 2025:CGHC:57673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5921 of 2025 1 - Anand Sharma S/o Late Shri Krishnakant Sharma, Aged About Years, R/o Ward No. 41, Kelabadi, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Aparna Sharma D/o Late Shri Krishnakant Sharma, Aged About Years, R/o Ward No. 41, Kelabadi, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 27/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to update the online records in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 in accordance with the registered sale-deed dated 10.06.2011. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to update the online records in favour of Petitioner No. 2 in accordance with the registered sale-deed dated 23.03.2009. 10.3 Any other or further release which the court may fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have purchased the lands vide registered sale-deed dated 10.06.2011 and 23.03.2009. Petitioners thereafter have got their names mutated in the reveue records in the year 2012, subsequent thereto, the State Government has taken a decision to feed all the revenue records in computer (online). However, the revenue entries made in the name of the petitioners could not be put to the online record. Petitioner, after getting the knowledge, had submitted an application before the concerned Tehsildar, upon which, the Tehsildar had issued memo to the concerned Patwari for entering the revenue entries in the name of the petitioner of the subject land online. However, as per the information of the petitioner, it was not entered, taking note of the order of the Collector dated 03.10.2019 that the sale and purchase of the land, description of which is mentioned in the order and the mutation is not to be made, he contended that the said order will not make any way to the case of the petitioners because, the sale transaction and the mutation is prior to the order passed by the Respondent No. 2/Collector. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the order passed by the Respondent No. 2/Collector is to stop illegal plotting and the illegal colonization without there being any proper license issued by the competent authority. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. The petitioner has placed the copy of sale-deed as Annexure P/1 along with the document B-1 & B-2 collectively, perusal of which would show that the sale transaction is of the year 2009 and 2011. Copy of the Kisan Book/Rinpustika is also placed on record as Annexure P/3 and therefore, the manual mutation entry made in the revenue records held in the name of the petitioners is also placed on record as Annexure P/4 namely, Anand Sharma and Aparna Sharma vide mutation entry dated 08.01.2012. 6. From the aforementioned facts and evidences available on record, it would show that the sale-transaction as also, the mutation in the revenue record is prior to the passing of the order passed by the Respondent No. 2/Collector restraining the revenue officials to issue the documents for transfer of the immovable property and to correct the revenue entries. It is also apparent that the mutation entry is already made in the name of the petitioner in revenue record much prior to the date of the order passed by the Respondent No. 2/Collector i.e. in the year 2019 and therefore, the letter written by the Patwari dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P/7) in view of the order passed by the Respondent No. 2/Collector, there is no possibility to enter the name of the petitioners in the online revenue records is not sustainable. 7. For the foregoing discussion, the Respondent no. 4 is directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner taking note of the aforementioned observation made by this Court and to pass an appropriate order for entering the name of the petitioners on the lands subject matter of sale-deed of the year 2009 and 2011 in favour of the petitioner as it is not a correction in the revenue records, but only making an entry from the manual records to the online records, if there is no other impediment. 4 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY