2025:CGHC:40745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2375 of 2016 1 - Kesholal Mandavi (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 07-08-2025 1.1 - Devchand Mandavi S/o Late Kesholal Mandavi Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Nathiya, Nawagaon, Tehsil And District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Devlal Mandavi S/o Late Kesholal Mandavi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Nathiya, Nawagaon, Tehsil And District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh 2 - Shaahbati, Wd/o Late Makhan Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nathiya, Nawagaon, Tahsil And District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hriday, S/o Late Makhan Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Nathiya, Nawagaon, Tahsil And District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Samrath, S/o Late Makhan Singh, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Nathiya, Nawagaon, Tahsil And District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Bhupendra, S/o Late Makhan Singh, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Nathiya, Nawagaon, Tahsil And District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Markam (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 07-08-2025 2 - Lokeshwar, S/o Laxman, R/o Village Telgara, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gajadhar, S/o Late Siyaram, R/o Village Dhekuna, Tahsil Narharpur, KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.12.09 11:03:38 +0530 District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bijendra, S/o Late Siyaram, R/o Village Dhekuna, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Shivcharan, S/o Ganeshram, R/o Village Dhekuna, Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ramkanwar Bai, Wd/o Late Bhagwan Gond, R/o Village Telgara, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 7 - Rajesh Kumar, S/o Late Bhagwan Gond, R/o Vilalge Telgara, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 8 - Kantilal, S/o Late Bhagwan Gond, R/o Village Telgara, Tahsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 9 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --------RESPONDENTS __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate For the respondents 1 to 8 : Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 13.08.2025 1. The petitioners have filed present writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Chhattisgarh Revenue Board, Bilaspur in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./R/A/A-6/09/78/2013 by which the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 31.01.2007, Sub-divisional Officer (R) dated 25.03.2010, Additional Commissioner dated 13.09.2012 have been set aside. Page 3 of 5 2. The facts as projected from the record are that the petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar for mutation for recording their name in the revenue records of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 12 area 13.58 hectares in Nathiya Nayagaon contending that it was registered in the name of their grandmother Chamarin widow of Devsingh, therefore, they have an equal share. The Tehsildar registered case number 13/A-6/2001-02 and passed the order dated 31.1.2007 in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed appel number 15/A-6/2007-08 in the court of Sub- Divisional Officer. Learned Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25.3.2010. The respondents filed Second Appeal No. 70/A-6/2009-10 before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13.9.2012 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the same, the respondents filed revision No. R.N./R/A-06/09/78/2013 before the Board of Revenue. Learned Board of Revenue allowed the revision vide its order dated 05.08.2016 and set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officers. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioners have preferred present writ petition, 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Additional Commissioner are legal and justified. The Board of Revenue has committed illegality in transgressing its jurisdiction ignoring the well settled position of law that the daughters are entitled to inherit the ancestral property. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present application has been filed for declaration and title over the aforesaid property, therefore, the jurisdiction lies with the Civil Court only not with the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authorities have decided the title which is beyond their jurisdiction, therefore, the Revnue Board has rightly set aside the order dated 31.01.2007, 25.03.2010 and 13.09.2013 and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the revenue authorities. 6. From bare perusal of the impugned orders, it prima facie reflects that the revenue authorities have settled the dispute of title over the aforesaid property which is beyond their jurisdiction as per Section 9 of the C.P.C. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner and Others {(2007) 6 SCC 186} has held as under :- 8. So far as mutation is concerned, it clear that entry has been made and mutation has been effected in Revenue Records by Tehsildar on the basis of an application made by respondent No.5 herein and his name has been entered in Record of Rights on the basis of the Will said to have been executed by Ratni Devi. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that by entering the name of respondent No. 5 in Revenue Records, any illegality had been committed by Tehsildar. It is true that no notice was issued to the appellants but the Tehsildar had taken the action on the basis of Will said to have been executed by deceased Ratni Devi in favour of respondent No. 5. The said order has been confirmed by the Collector as also by Financial Commissioner. When the grievance was made against the said action by filing a Writ Petition, the High Court also confirmed all the orders passed by Revenue Authorities under the Act. We see no infirmity so far as that part of the order is concerned. 9. There is an additional reason as to why we need not interfere with that order under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose' i.e. payment of land-revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1653). As already noted earlier, Civil Proceedings in regard to genuineness of Will are pending with High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. 7. In light of the aforesaid judgment, it is quite vivid that jurisdiction lies within the domain of the Civil Court only, therefore, all the proceeding initiated before the Revenue Authorities are without jurisdiction and Non est . Accordingly, the impugned order as well as entire revenue proceeding is hereby quashed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners and respondents to claim their title over the suit property by filing appropriate application under civil law remedy. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh