1 2025:CGHC:54531-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 808 of 2025 1. Chandrahas Sao S/o Late Ganeshram Sao Aged About 62 Years R/o Shrinagar Gift House, Polsaypara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Santara Badi, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Chandra Mohan Sao S/o Late Ganeshram Sao Aged About 55 Years R/o Shrinagar Gift House, Polsaypara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Santara Badi, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Miss. Shri Vijay Laxmi Sao D/o Late Ganeshram Sao Aged About 59 Years R/o Shrinagar Gift House, Polsaypara, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Santara Badi, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Subhadra Devi Sao D/o Late Ganeshram Sao, W/o Shri Bisahu Singh Sao Aged About 67 Years R/o Danganiya, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Presently R/o Kabir Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court - Raipur, Through Its President, Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.11.10 17:03:11 +0530 2 2. The Upper Commissioner Raipur Division, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Sub Division Officer (Revenue) Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. The Tahsildar Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Shrijata Bhattacharya W/o Shri Abhijit Goswami Aged About 59 Years R/o House No. 59 A/7, Nehru Nagar, West Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District Durg Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Tapshri Goswami W/o Shri Sanjay Goswami Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 59 A/7, Nehru Nagar, West Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 .11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 3 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2377 of 2022 (Chandrahas Sao & Others vs. The Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court-Raipur & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed. 4. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants submits that the appellants belong to ordinary middle-class families with modest means. By order dated 11.08.2025, the learned Single Judge remanded the matter to the Board of Revenue in proceedings under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), which has caused grave hardship to the appellants. They have been constrained to face prolonged litigation for over 17 years since 2008, before various forums including the Tehsildar, Sub- Divisional Officer, Upper Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur, and this Hon’ble Court. 5. It is submitted that the original owner of the land in dispute, late Jaisiram, was recorded as the holder of Khasra No. 109 admeasuring 2.18 acres situated at Village Junwani, Smriti Nagar, District Durg. After his death on 11.12.1972, the property devolved upon his legal heirs— 4 Pusau, Dhusu, Kalyan, Kali, Anarbai, and Ramhin—whose names were mutated in 1977. Before mutation, these heirs executed various sale deeds for portions of the same land. On 29.01.1975, Dhusu, one of the legal heirs, sold 0.62 acres from Khasra No. 109 to Shri Ganeshram Sao, father of the appellants, for valid consideration. Soon after, Shri Ganeshram Sao passed away, leaving the appellants as minors. Upon attaining majority, the appellants discovered the sale deed and, in 2008, applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. 6. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that although only 0.51 acre remained with the legal heirs of Jaisiram, they executed another sale deed in 1986 in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6 for 1.13 acres, including the land already sold to Shri Ganeshram Sao. This subsequent sale was void ab initio as the vendors had already transferred ownership in 1975. The Tehsildar erroneously rejected the mutation application on the ground that questions of title were involved. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and directed that the appellants’ names be mutated. The Upper Commissioner upheld the order, holding that the registered sale deed of 1975 conferred valid title and that no limitation applies to mutation proceedings. However, the Board of Revenue, by a misconceived order, partly allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Tehsildar, failing to appreciate that prior demarcation proceedings had confirmed the appellants’ possession and title. The spot panchanama dated 02.12.2019, prepared in the presence of respondent No. 5’s husband and a Bank of India official, clearly acknowledged the appellants’ 5 possession. The Tehsildar’s demarcation order dated 14.01.2020 remains unchallenged and has attained finality. 7. It is next contended that although no mortgage was recorded prior to demarcation, a fraudulent mortgage entry was subsequently inserted in the Bhuiyan records at the instance of respondents No. 5 and 6 in connivance with certain bank officials, without notice to the appellants. Despite written objections dated 03.09.2020, no action was taken, resulting in grave injustice. The Board of Revenue also ignored earlier registered sale deeds of 1973, executed jointly by other heirs along with Dhusu, which clearly established his authority to sell his share to Shri Ganeshram Sao. The finding that Dhusu lacked competence to sell is contrary to record and settled law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in F.A. No. 54/2023, wherein it was held that when two sale deeds are executed for the same property, no right accrues to the subsequent purchaser. Hence, the appellants, claiming under the prior registered sale deed of 1975, possess superior and lawful title to the disputed land. 8. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that while the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code—which deal only with reporting and mutation of rights and not with adjudication of title— the learned Single Judge erred in remanding the matter instead of quashing the order in its entirety. It is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to settled principles of law, and 6 therefore, deserves to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the entire record. 11. Para 9 of the order dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) reads as under: “9- vr% mijksDr rF;]= foospuk ,oa fof/kd vk/kkj ds ifj.kkeLo:i izdj.k esa vij vk;qDr] jk;iqj laHkkx }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 30-08-2012 vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] nqxZ }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 23-08-2011 ,oa rglhynkj] nqxZ }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 15-11-2020 fof/kfoijhr gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSa rglhynkj dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os vukosndx.k ds vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k esa mudks izkIr LoRo ds laca/k esa fu;ekuqlkj lE;d tkap dj] izdj.k dk xq.knks”k ds vk/kkj ij fujkdj.k djsaA iqujh{k.k vkaf’kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSa” 12. A plain reading of the above shows that the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Tehsildar to decide the title of the suit land. Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of 1959 only deal with reporting and recording of acquisition of rights in the field book and other land records, and do not empower revenue authorities to adjudicate questions of ownership or title. Determination of title lies 7 exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the order of the Board of Revenue was illegal and unsustainable. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ appeal, it stands dismissed, holding that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the order remanding the matter to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of 1959 in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan