-1- 2025:CGHC:15427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 683 of 2019 Hansi Bai D/o Nathuram Gond Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Maldi, Tahsil Bhatapara, District - Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Mansingh Dhruv S/o Munshiram Dhruv R/o Tenhka, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Homlal Druv S/o Dev Singh R/o Village Surjpur, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda- Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Hoblal Dhruv S/o Dev Singh R/o Village Surjpur, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda- Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sarpanch Village Panchayat - Surkhi , Tahsil- Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. K. K. Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.04.2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 1) The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the Board of Revenue Bilaspur, in Case No. R.N./21/R/A-6/367/2015, whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner was set-aside. 2) Facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No. 6/12, ad- measuring 1.862 hectares, from one Munshiram Dhruv (father of respondent No. 1) through a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1998. The said land was originally purchased by Munshiram Dhruv in 1966- 67. B. After the purchase of the said land, the petitioner moved an application for mutation before the concerned Tehsildar, which was registered as Case No. 6/A-6/2000-01. C. After the demise of Munshiram, respondent No. 1/son of Munshiram moved an application for mutation, which was allowed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 17.09.2001. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) [SDO(R)], and it was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2010. The petitioner then preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 04.09.2015. It was held that the petitioner had purchased the subject land through a registered sale deed. D. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 preferred a revision challenging therein the order passed by the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue, and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.09.2018. E. Against the said order, the present petition has been preferred. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had acquired title over the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1998, therefore he moved an application for mutation on 06.09.1998. However, during -3- the pendency of that application, respondent No. 1 moved another application for mutation, which was allowed by the Tehsildar. He argued that after the execution of the registered sale deed by Munshiram Dhruv, respondent No. 1 had no legal right over the property. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner had passed a well-reasoned order, and the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue are contrary to the provisions of Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (CGLRC). He would pray to quash the order. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Singh & Others v. Birbal & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 353. 4) Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions and contended that though the petitioner had purchased the subject land through a registered sale deed but no immediate steps were taken for mutation by him. He would further submit that after the demise of Munshiram, the subject land was recorded in the names of the respondents pursuant to the order passed by the Tehsildar on 17.09.2001. It is argued that the SDO(R) had recorded categorical findings in this regard. The respondents also pointed out that earlier, a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 315/2004) was filed claiming therein the right over the subject land but the same was later withdrawn. It is also contended that the learned Commissioner had erred in deciding the issue of ownership and title, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the revenue courts. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed -4- on the record. 6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment rendered in Prem Singh & Others (supra) to support his claim of title. However, in that case, the suit was filed to set aside a registered sale deed on grounds of fraud/misrepresentation, attracting Article 59 of the Limitation Act. However, in the case at hand is different as it relates to the validity of a mutation entry in the revenue records and whether the revenue authorities have jurisdiction to decide the issue of title. 7) It is a settled legal position that mutation entries are for fiscal purposes and do not confer ownership rights. In the present case, while the petitioner may have purchased the property through a registered sale deed, the determination of ownership rights should be adjudicated by a civil court, and not by revenue authorities. Thus, the reliance placed on Prem Singh (supra) is misplaced in the given factual and legal context. 8) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents on record, it is evident that the subject land was purchased through a registered sale deed but no steps were taken for mutation at the relevant time, and before the disposal of the mutation application of the petitioner, the subject land was recorded in the names of the respondents pursuant to the order dated 17.09.2001 passed by the Tehsildar. The order was subsequently upheld by the SDO(R). 9) The Commissioner, while deciding the second appeal, ventured into the issue of ownership and title, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. -5- The Board of Revenue correctly set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner, as revenue courts do not have the authority to decide the title. 10) Considering the above-discussed facts and legal principles, no good ground for interference with the order of the Board of Revenue is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 11) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of. No Cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim