1 2026:CGHC:243-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 951 of 2025 1 - Suresh Kumar Adile S/o Jaipal Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o Adile Chowk, Purani Basti, Korba, P.S.- City-Kotwali, Korba, Teh. And Dist. Korba, C.G. 2 - Narendra Kumar Adile S/o Jaipal Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Adile Chowk, Purani Basti, Korba, P.S. City Kotwali, Korba, Teh. And Dist. Korba, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Adile S/o Late Gopal Adile R/o Adile Chowk, Purani Basti, Korba, P.S. City Kotwali, Korba, Teh. And Dist. Korba, C.G., Presently R/o Flat No. 104, C-Block Avenue 144, Near Medishine Hospital, Rajendra Nagar, Amlidih, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Bhawesh Kaustubh S/o Late Anup Das Kurre R/o Vill - Pota Tehsil - Malkhroda And Dist. Sakti (C.G.) Presently R/o Sun Residency, Phase- Ii, Mangla, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Pallavi D/o Late Anup Das Kurre R/o Sun Residency, House No. 2, Phase-II, Mangla, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Seema D/o Late Jaipal Singh R/o Vill- Salihabhata, Tehsil - Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Shivpal S/o Late Baratu R/o Purani Basti, Korba, Tehsil - Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 6 - Shanti D/o Late Baratu R/o Vill- Tarda, Tehsil - Kartala, District - Korba (C.G.) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.05 14:53:24 +0530 2 7 - Malti D/o Late Baratu R/o Vill - Banta, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.01.2026 1 Heard Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel for the appellants. 2 I.A. No.01/2025, an application for condonation of delay of 320 days in preferring the appeal has been filed by learned counsel for the appellants. 3 By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 26.11.2024, or alternatively may remand back the matter to learned Single Judge with direction to decide the matter on merits.” 4 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.5853/2024 (Suresh Kumar Adile and another v. 3 Vijay Kumar Adile and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners has been disposed of. 5 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that Baratu was the original owner of the disputed land and had executed a registered Will dated 27.01.1995 in favour of the writ petitioners. On the basis of the said will, the disputed land was duly mutated in the names of the writ petitioners in the revenue records. Subsequently, on an application moved by the legal representatives, namely the grandsons of Baratu, the names of the writ petitioners were deleted from the revenue records and the land was recorded in the names of the respondents. Thereafter, a series of proceedings ensued before the revenue authorities, wherein conflicting orders came to be passed, some in favour of the writ petitioners and others in favour of the respondents, culminating before the Board of Revenue. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue, by the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure- P/1), decided the matter in favour of the respondents, which order is per se illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 6 Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2024, the appellants/writ petitioners preferred Writ Petition (C) No. 5853/2024, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.11.2024. 7 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 5853/2024, the present appeal has been filed by 4 the appellants/writ petitioners. 8 Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that— • the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, is wholly misconceived, void ab initio and non est in the eyes of law, and therefore deserves to be declared inoperative. • the learned writ Court has erred in holding the dispute between the parties to be a title dispute and has disposed of the writ petition in a hurried manner without examining the merits. A bare perusal of the pleadings clearly demonstrates that the controversy is confined to mutation of names in the revenue records. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are the heirs of late Baratu and, therefore, always had title over the suit land, whereas it is the respondents whose title is in dispute. In such circumstances, rejection of the petitioners’ case by the learned Single Judge is patently erroneous. • the learned writ Court failed to properly appreciate that the Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 29.09.2012, had rightly held that the second mutation order No. 77 dated 17.04.1999 was invalid, as the land in question had already been mutated in favour of the petitioners vide mutation order No. 114 dated 17.10.1997 on the basis of a registered Will. The second 5 mutation order was correctly found to be faulty for the reason that the land was not standing in the name of late Baratu on the relevant date. It is further submitted that the first mutation order in favour of the petitioners continues to hold the field and was never challenged by any party. • the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the order dated 09.06.2016, whereby the review filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the order dated 29.09.2012 was reviewed and set aside, is ex facie bad in law, there being no permissible ground for review. The scope of review is limited to correction of an error apparent on the face of record and cannot be expanded to act as an appeal in disguise, a principle consistently reiterated by a catena of judgments. • the learned Single Judge further failed to consider the mandatory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. Proviso (i) to Section 51 mandates prior sanction of the competent authority before review of an order not passed by the reviewing officer, and Proviso (iii) stipulates that no order affecting rights between private parties shall be reviewed except on an application made within ninety days. In the present case, the Sub-Divisional Officer, while passing the review order dated 09.06.2016, reviewed the earlier order dated 29.09.2012 without obtaining the requisite sanction and after an unexplained delay of more than three and a half years, 6 rendering the review order wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to law. • the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the learned Board of Revenue gravely erred in undertaking an in-depth examination of a registered Will, thereby ignoring its statutory sanctity. It is settled law that the validity of a registered document can be questioned only before a competent civil court. In the absence of any such challenge, the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by virtually assuming the role of a civil court and adjudicating upon the validity of the registered Will, which was never impugned by any party. • the learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the earlier writ petition filed by the appellants was not decided on its own merits, and thus could not have been relied upon to non-suit the appellants in the present proceedings. • the appellants crave leave to urge such other grounds as may be available on record or arise during the course of hearing, and pray that the same be considered in the interest of justice. 9 We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 10 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- 7 “4. Perusal of documents filed by the petitioners i.e., orders passed by the revenue authorities shows that petitioners are claiming their title over the disputed land on the basis of registered Will executed by Baratu in their favour, whereas respondents are challenging the validity of Will and claiming their right, as it is stated that they are son/daughter/grandsons/category 1st legal heirs of Baratu. Perusal of contents of the case clearly show that there is title dispute between both the parties, as such, in such situation, revenue Courts ought not to have interfered and once it is revealed that it is a title dispute, then revenue Courts must stop their proceeding and suggest parties to go to the Civil Court and get decided their title dispute, but, in number of cases, it is being seen that revenue authorities are indulged in deciding title dispute, even upto Board of Revenue, therefore, Additional Advocate General is directed to communicate this fact to Secretary, Revenue Department to refrain revenue authorities to deal with such issues and create further complications and dispute between the parties. 5. Considering the title dispute involved in instant case, I am not inclined to entertain instant petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed at motion stage itself. 6. However, liberty is left with the petitioner to take recourse of law, available to him. 8 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. 8. The pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.” 11 Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. 12 From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties revolves around the validity of a registered Will and the competing claims of inheritance set up by the contesting respondents, who assert themselves to be the natural legal heirs of late Baratu. Once such rival claims touching upon the very foundation of title are raised, the controversy clearly assumes the character of a title dispute, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the writ jurisdiction or before the revenue authorities. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, fully justified in declining to entertain the writ petition and in relegating the parties to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent civil Court. 13 This Court is also not persuaded to accept the contention that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the merits of the case. The reasoning recorded in the impugned order demonstrates due application of mind to the nature of the dispute and the settled legal position that revenue courts are not competent to decide 9 questions of title. The liberty granted to the appellants to seek appropriate remedy under law further safeguards their rights and cannot be said to prejudice them in any manner. 14 Apart from the above, it is also evident that the present intra-Court appeal suffers from a substantial delay of 320 days. Though an application for condonation of delay has been filed, no sufficient or satisfactory explanation has been furnished to justify such an inordinate delay. In the absence of bona fide and convincing reasons, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay, especially when no case on merits is otherwise made out. 15 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay as well as the writ appeal are dismissed, both on the ground of limitation as also on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu