1 2025:CGHC:7969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 682 of 2020 1 - Derha Ram Sahu S/o Late Thanuram Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village- Bendri, Tahsil Abhanpur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Shyambati D/o Late Thanuram, Resident Of Village- Saragaon, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Jambati D/o Late Thanuram, Resident Of Village- Bendri, Tahsil Abhanpur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Johatri D/o Late Thanuram, Resident Of Gogaon Suryanagar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Manbati D/o Late Thanuram, Resident Of Village- Kukara, Tahsil- Aarang District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Office Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Tahsil Abhanpur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Commissioner Division- Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Shri Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Lav Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.02.2025 Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 10.1.2020, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) were affirmed. 3. The facts of the present case are that 2.712 hectares of land was recorded in the name of Thanuram. Respondents No.1 to 4 and the petitioner are brother and sisters. After the death of Thanuram, the petitioner got the entire property mutated in his name on the basis of the unregistered settlement deed dated 10.3.1989. The petitioner was in possession of the entire property, and his name was entered in the revenue records. In the year 2007, respondents No.1 to 4 moved an application under Sections 109-110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and vide order dated 26.6.2015, an order was passed to enter the names of the petitioner as well as respondents No.1 to 4. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2018. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records since 1992. The settlement deed was executed by Thanuram in favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the said document, the petitioner has perfected his right. Respondents No.1 to 4/sisters have no right 3 over the property as they were married prior to 1992, and there was a delay of 17 years in filing the application for mutation. He would pray to quash the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Commissioner and Board of Revenue. He would further submit that Thanuram died on 18.2.2008 and never raised any objection with regard to entries made in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 would argue that the subject property is the ancestral property of the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 4. He would contend that after the death of Thanuram, the petitioner alone got entered his name in the revenue records in a clandestine manner. He would further submit that the settlement deed dated 10.3.1989 is an unregistered document, therefore, the same is not admissible. He would further argue that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the three revenue authorities. He would also argue that the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed an order to record the names of the petitioner as well as respondents No.1 to 4. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the State would support the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 8. Admittedly, after the death of Thanuram, the entire property was mutated in the name of the petitioner vide order dated 08.10.1990. The name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records too. -4- The petitioner was in possession of the entire subject property. Respondents No.1 to 4 moved an application before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) under Sections 109-110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code in the year 2007, making prayer to record their names in the revenue records. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred by respondents No.1 to 3 before the Sub- Divisional Officer and it was allowed vide order dated 26.2.2015, wherein a direction was issued to enter the names of the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 4 in the revenue records. The order was passed after the death of Thanuram. The appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner were dismissed by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue on the ground that the property is ancestral property; the settlement deed dated 10.3.1989 is an unregistered document, and the petitioner does not get any right by virtue of the said document. It is also observed that any transaction more than Rs.100/- of value requires registration according to the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the revenue courts and the fact that the settlement deed is not a registered document, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Revenue Courts have rightly passed the order to record the names of the petitioner as well as respondents No.1 to 4 in the revenue records concerning the subject property. 10.Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law if so advised. 5 11.The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi