ORDER : 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg in Case No.288/A-70/2019-20, whereby, the learned Commissioner, while upholding the orders dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) and 23.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg and the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, respectively, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, holding it to be not maintainable. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land bearing Khasra No.1161/1, Plot No.28-A, admeasuring 1250 square feet was owned by one Prakash Samantkar, while the land bearing Khasra No.1169/2, Plot No.28-B, admeasuring 1250 square feet by A. Surya Narayan and the entire said land, which falls within Khasra Nos.1153 to 1199, was mortgaged by them with the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) for obtaining the loan amount and when they failed to repay the same, a symbolic possession of it was taken over by the said Bank and thereafter, moved an application before the District Magistrate, Durg for obtaining its physical possession, who in turn, passed the orders on 28.02.2013 and 23.05.2015 in favour of the Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the SARFAESI Act”). 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, a Securitisation Application No.121/2015 was moved by one Lallu Ram Verma, the respondent No.2 herein, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), alleging inter alia, that the land bearing Khasra No.1211/1 (Old Khasra No.169) admeasuring 2600 square feet, consisting of Plot No.19 was held by him, as the same, which falls within the limit of Khasra Nos.1200 to 1223, was purchased by his father under the registered deed of sale dated 14.07.1981 from one Chandrika Prasad, but, the said borrowers-Prakash Samantkar and A. Surya Narayan and the Bank with the malafide intentions misguided the Court of District Magistrate in order to get the physical possession of his land, i.e. the land bearing Khasra No.1211 admeasuring 2600 square feet, which compelled him to file the said Securitisation Application. 4. 4. The aforesaid application was contested by said borrowers and the Bank and, upon due consideration of their contentions, the Tribunal vide its order dated 05.01.2017 (Annexure P-2), directed the District Magistrate, Durg to get the alleged land, held by him, i.e. Lallu Ram, identified first and then demarcate physically with that of the properties held by said borrowers before executing the order dated 23.05.2015 for providing physical possession of the secured assets to the said Bank. 5. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the proceeding was initiated and, during the course of the said proceedings, an objection (Annexure P-5) dated 24.07.2019 was raised by the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar, alleging therein, that the part of the land bearing Khasra No.1153/1 admeasuring 0.02 hectare (2500 square feet) was purchased by his father under the registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008 from Rambagas, Nand Kumar and Ajay Kumar through the Power of Attorney holder, namely, Vinod Kumar Son of Hiru Ram. It appears further that the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, vide its order dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed in Revenue Case No.RC-51-A/70/2016-17, has held that the vendors of the alleged registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008 have no alienable interest over it and have sold fraudulently while showing it to be the part of the Khasra No.1153/1, whereas, the said Plot No.28 was situated at Khasra No.1169 (Old Khasra No.168/17) and would, therefore, not confer any title upon him (Mukesh Kumar) and, accordingly, held that said Lallu Ram has valid title over the alleged land, i.e. the land bearing Khasra No.1211 admeasuring 2600 square feet, and exists on the spot and, in consequence, directed for removal of the petitioner’s possession from the land bearing Khasra No.1169, Plot No.28 admeasuring 2500 square feet with a direction that a part of it, i.e.1250 square feet be provided to the Bank, while rest, i.e. 1250 square feet to said Nand Kishore Pandey and, directed further that the possession of the Bank from the land bearing Khasra No.1211, Plot No.19, area 2600 square feet, held by said Lallu Ram, be removed and provided to him (Lallu Ram). 6. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg as per the provision prescribed under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”), who in turn, vide its order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) has dismissed the same, holding it to be not maintainable as the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar was not an original order, passed under the Code, 1959, so as to examine its validity in appeal and, the finding so recorded, was affirmed further by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg vide order dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) in appeal preferred by the petitioner. This is the order, which has been impugned by way of filing this petition by the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar. 7. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, holding that the vendors of the petitioner have no alienable interest over the land purchased by him (Mukesh Kumar), is apparently in excess of its jurisdiction even without considering the objection raised by him and therefore, the order impugned as passed by the Commissioner upholding the same, is apparently contrary to law and deserves to be quashed. It is contended further that since the said order was passed in exercise of the powers provided under the Code, 1959, therefore, the appeal preferred their against ought not to have been held to be not maintainable, and, praying for remanding the matter before the appropriate authority for deciding his alleged objection in accordance with law. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the order impugned as passed by the Revenue Authorities. 9. I have learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers carefully. 10. The questions, which arise for determination in this petition are:- “i. Whether the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar was justified in holding that the registered deed of sale, dated 03.11.2008, executed in favour of petitioner’s father by his vendor, was without any authority and would, therefore, not confer any valid interest upon him? ii. Whether the Appellate Revenue Authorities were justified in holding that the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, are not maintainable?” 11. ii. Whether the Appellate Revenue Authorities were justified in holding that the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, are not maintainable?” 11. From perusal of the record, it appears that the land bearing Khasra No.1169/1, Plot No.28-A admeasuring 1250 square feet was owned by one Prakash Samantkar, while the land bearing Khasra No.1169/2, Plot No.28-B admeasuring 1250 square feet by A. Surya Narayan, who have jointly purchased the same i.e. 2500 square feet situated at Bajrang Nagar, Village- Kohka, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) under the registered deed of sale dated 28.03.2006 purported to have been executed by one Shivratan Nema and, the land so purchased, was thereafter converted as mentioned herein-above in their respective names. 12. The aforesaid lands were mortgaged by them with the Bank for obtaining the loan amount, but, have failed to repay the same, owing to which, the symbolic possession of it was taken over by the said Bank and thereafter, moved an application under the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Durg for its physical possession, who in turn, has passed the orders on 28.02.2013 and 23.05.2015 directing for providing the alleged mortgaged land to the Bank. 13. During the execution proceedings of the aforesaid order, an objection was raised by the respondent-Lallu Ram by moving an application, marked as Securitisation Application No.121/2015, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Tribunal. According to him, the land bearing Khasra No.1211 admeasuring 2600 square feet purchased by his father under the registered deed of sale dated 14.07.1981, was neither the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act for obtaining possession of the land held and mortgaged by the said borrowers, nor any order was passed for directing possession of his alleged land to the Bank, but the said borrowers and the Bank with an ulterior motive and with a malafide intention are misguiding the Court of District Magistrate, Durg, in order to get the physical possession of his land. 14. 14. The aforesaid objection raised by said Lallu Ram was contested by said borrowers and the Bank and after consideration of their contentions, it was held by the Tribunal vide its order dated 05.01.2017 (Annexure P-2) that the alleged objection/application made by said Lallu Ram under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable and in order to ascertain the fact as to whether the Bank is trying to take the physical possession of his land or not, a direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Durg to get it first identified and demarcate the alleged land physically with that of the properties held and mortgaged by the said borrowers, before executing the order for providing physical possession of the secured assets to the Bank. The relevant observations made in this regard at paragraph 14, reads as under:- “Para 14…………… Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the District Magistrate, Durg is directed to first identify and physically demarcate the property of the Applicant with that of property of Respondent No.2 and 3 before executing his order dated 23.05.2015 for giving physical possession of the secured assets to the Bank.” 15. The aforesaid direction was issued by the Tribunal as there was the dispute exists amongst the parties regarding their boundaries and was, therefore, issued for ascertaining the identity of the land in question. In view of the aforesaid specific direction, it is, thus, evident that before providing the physical possession of the secured assets, held by the borrowers to the Bank, an identification and/or the demarcation of the land held by said respondent-Lallu Ram with that of the borrowers are to be carried out. It, therefore, appears that the Additional Tahsildar was directed by the District Magistrate for complying with the said direction as the same could be done by the Revenue Authority, i.e. the Tahsildar/ Additional Tahsildar, under the provision prescribed under Section 125 of the Code, 1959. 16. Section 125 of the Code, 1959 is relevant for the purpose, which provides as under:- “ 125. Disputes regarding boundaries between villages, survey numbers and plot numbers - All disputes regarding boundaries of villages, survey numbers and plot numbers where such boundaries have been fixed under the provisions of Section 124, shall be decided by the Tahsildar after local inquiry at which all persons interested shall have an opportunity of appearing and producing evidence.” 17. Disputes regarding boundaries between villages, survey numbers and plot numbers - All disputes regarding boundaries of villages, survey numbers and plot numbers where such boundaries have been fixed under the provisions of Section 124, shall be decided by the Tahsildar after local inquiry at which all persons interested shall have an opportunity of appearing and producing evidence.” 17. While acting under the aforesaid provision, a direction was issued by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar to the Revenue Inspector, Division Kohka, Tahsil and District Durg to submit its demarcation report and, in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Inspector, Kohka has submitted his report (Annexure P-3) to the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, stating therein that the alleged land pointed out by the Bank is not available on the spot and instead, the name-board of the petitioner- Mukesh Kumar is found to be installed there on the spot. It appears further from a bare perusal of the Panchnama (Annexure P-4) dated 19.02.2019, made on the basis of the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar in Revenue Case No.51-A/70/2016-17, that when the physical possession of the land was being provided to the Bank, an objection dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure P-5) was made by the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar, alleging therein, that the possession of his land, i.e. land bearing Khasra No.1153/1 admeasuring 2500 square feet, which is, however, neither a disputed piece of land, nor was mortgaged with the Bank for the security of the alleged loan amount availed by said borrowers, is being given to the Bank. 18. It, however, appears that the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, vide its order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Revenue Case No. 51-A/70/2016-17 has held that the petitioner is not the owner of the alleged land as his vendors, i.e. Rambagas, Nand Kumar and Ajay Kumar, have no alienable interest over it, as the predecessors-in-interest of theirs, namely Rambati W/o Panchu had already sold the alleged land to one Shivratan Nema under the registered deed of sale dated 03.06.1981, as such, they have no right to alienate the same again to the petitioner’s father by executing the registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008. It observed further that the vendors of the petitioner’s father while showing the Plot No.28 to be the part of Khasra No.1153/1 had sold the same, whereas the alleged plot, i.e. Plot No.28 was, in fact, the part of the Khasra No.1169 (Old Khasra No.168/17), purchased by the said borrowers, namely, Prakash Samantkar and A. Surya Narayan and that by observing as such, a direction was issued for removal of the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar from the alleged land, i.e. Khasra No.1169, Plot No.28, admeasuring 2500 square feet. 19. The aforesaid observation of the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, holding that the alleged registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008, based upon which, he (petitioner) acquired his valid right, title and interest over the land bearing Khasra No.1153/1 admeasuring 2500 square feet of Plot No.28 was executed without any authority of its vendors and who sold it while showing it to be the part of the Khasra No.1153/1, though was the part of Khasra No.1169 (Old Khasra No.168/17), is apparently beyond his jurisdiction, as the question of title could be determined only by the competent Civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction. It is to be seen at this juncture, the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Kaliram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others , (2009) 2 MPHT 1 (CG) , wherein it has been observed at paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 14 as under:- “9. In the present case, admittedly the ownership of title of the petition scheduled land is in dispute as the property stands in the name of the petitioner by virtue of purchase. However, the respondent No. 4 - brother of the petitioner disputes the title on the ground that it was a joint HUF property as the same was purchased by the father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 in the name of the petitioner as the petitioner alone was major at the relevant time. On perusal of the order dated 31-5-2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the orders dated 14-7-2003 (Annexure P-3) and 24-12-2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Courts below, it appears that the authorities have decided the dispute with regard to the title also which is beyond their jurisdiction. 10. On perusal of the order dated 31-5-2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the orders dated 14-7-2003 (Annexure P-3) and 24-12-2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Courts below, it appears that the authorities have decided the dispute with regard to the title also which is beyond their jurisdiction. 10. Section 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that the "Revenue Court" under any local law may entertain suits or other proceedings relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land used for agricultural purposes, but does not include a Civil Court having original jurisdiction under this Code to try such suits or proceedings as being suits or proceedings of a civil nature and the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to try and pass a decree on the issue. 12. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Shri G. P. Singh, former Chief Justice, M.P. High Court, Tenth Edition, Page 681, which reads: “There is a strong presumption that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide all questions of civil nature. The exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is therefore not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must either be "explicitly expressed or clearly implied". "It is a principle by no means to be whittled down" and has been referred to as a "fundamental rule". As a necessary corollary of this rule provisions excluding jurisdiction of Civil Courts and provisions conferring jurisdiction on authorities and Tribunals other than Civil Courts are strictly construed. The existence of jurisdiction in Civil Courts to decide questions of civil nature being the general rule and exclusion being an exception, the burden of proof to show that jurisdiction is excluded in any particular case is on the party raising such a contention.” 14. In the identical situation, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bibi Bai (Mst.) v. Habib Khan and Ors. 1991 RN 97 (High Court), held that 'the Tehsildar has to retain seisin of the application presented u/s 178 of the Code and direct the applicant to approach the Civil Court within three months to get the question of title decided.” 20. 1991 RN 97 (High Court), held that 'the Tehsildar has to retain seisin of the application presented u/s 178 of the Code and direct the applicant to approach the Civil Court within three months to get the question of title decided.” 20. In view of the principles laid down herein-above, it is, thus, evident that if there is a dispute regarding the execution of a document, or the right and title of a person to execute a document, then the same could be determined only by the Civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction and, the Revenue Courts’ have no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to decide the title of the person concerned. In view thereof, the aforesaid observation made by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, thus, held to be without its jurisdiction and cannot be upheld from the stretch of any imagination. 21. It is to be seen further that the aforesaid proceedings, carried out by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, was done in exercise of the powers enumerated under Section 125 of the Code, 1959, though not mentioned specifically therein. Therefore, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appeal preferred against the said order of the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg under Section 44 (1) of the Code, 1959, was not maintainable, as observed by the Appellate Revenue Authorities. 22. Moreover, a specific direction issued by the Tribunal vide its order dated 05.01.2017, mentioned herein-above, is, however, not found to be complied with by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar and instead, the question of title with regard to the alleged land was rather determined beyond its jurisdiction. The order dated 23.09.2019 as passed by the said authority, was, therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law, yet the same has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide its order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed in Revenue Appeal No.26/A-70/2019-20 and the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg vide its order impugned dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed in Case No.288/A-70/2019-20. 23. 23. In view of the aforesaid background, the order impugned dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg in Case No.288/A-70/2019-20, affirming the orders dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) and 23.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg and the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar in Revenue Appeal No.26/A-70/2019-20 and in Revenue Case No.51/A-70/2016-17, respectively, is hereby quashed and, the matter is remitted back to the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law and the parties present over here through their respective counsels are directed to remain present before the said authority i.e. the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar on 11.08.2025. 24. The petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations. No order as to costs.