1 2026:CGHC:22418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 552 of 2026 1 - Mohammad Salim Rokadiya S/o Dawood Rokadiya Aged About 55 Years R/o Salhevaar Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mohammad Arif Rokadiya S/o Dawood Rokadiya Aged About 55years R/o Akshganga Colony House No.48, Rudri Road, Dhamtari Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. N.K.Shukla, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Nitikesh Gupta and Mr. Nikesh Kumar Ghole, Advocates (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 12/05/2026 Heard. Present is a petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of 2 Revenue, Bilaspur Circuit Court at Raipur in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N/24/R/A-6/68/2020, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the orders passed by the subordinate revenue authorities. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the strength of the alleged gift deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, the concerned Revenue Authority proceeded to mutate the name of the respondent, which mutation was subsequently certified by the Tahsildar, Gurur, District Balod, without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the relevant mutation rules. It is contended that no notice whatsoever was issued prior to mutation came to be ordered and certified by the Tahsildar. According to the petitioner, the mutation proceedings having been conducted in utter disregard of the prescribed procedure and in violation of principles of natural justice, the resultant orders are rendered unsustainable in law. 3. It is further argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod, the Commissioner, Durg Division as well as the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue have mechanically affirmed the mutation order without properly considering the specific objection raised by the petitioner that the mutation proceedings were conducted dehors the statutory rules governing mutation. She contended that where a particular procedure has been prescribed by statute for mutation of the name of a person acquiring title, strict adherence thereto is imperative and any deviation therefrom vitiates the entire proceedings. It is thus submitted that in absence of issuance of notice and affording adequate SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.14 11:58:14 +0530 3 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality, procedural impropriety and jurisdictional infirmity and are therefore liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned orders and submitted that the registered gift deed dated 30.09.2016, which forms the very basis of mutation, has admittedly never been challenged by the petitioner before any competent forum. It has further been contended that the petitioner himself had moved an application before the concerned revenue authorities seeking mutation of the respondent’s name and therefore the question of issuance of any further notice to the parties did not arise. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Board of Revenue and the same do not warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 6. The challenge in the present petition pertains to the mutation order certified by the Tahsildar, Gurur on 02.01.2017 on the basis of the registered gift deed dated 30.09.2016 executed in favour of the respondent. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid registered gift deed has not been assailed by the petitioner before any forum and the challenge is confined only to the mutation proceedings. The Tahsildar 4 before certifying the same has made observation that “izfof”V ns[kk izdkf’kr dksbZ vk{ksi ugha] jftLVMZ nku i= is’k ns[kk izekf.kr”. 7. From perusal of Annexure P/2 as well as Annexure R/3 filed by the respondent, it transpires that publication of notice was duly effected prior to certification of mutation and thereafter the Tahsildar proceeded to certify the same. The endorsement recorded by the Tahsildar also reflects that no objection was received despite publication. In such circumstances, merely alleging non-compliance of procedural formalities in mutation proceedings, without assailing the very document of title, would not by itself constitute a valid ground for setting aside the mutation order, particularly when the same has concurrently been affirmed by the Tahsildar, SDO (Revenue) and the Board of Revenue. 8. The following judgments of the Apex Court would be apposite and can effectively be relied upon in a matter involving limited interference under Article 227, concurrent findings of revenue authorities and challenge to mutation proceedings without assailing the title document itself. It is well settled that mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and are only fiscal in nature. In Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137, the Apex Court has categorically held that mutation in revenue records does not confer title. Likewise, in Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 2 SCC 188, it has been reiterated that revenue entries are maintained only for fiscal purposes ie. payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. 5 9. Further, the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is extremely limited. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Apex Court held that the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, does not sit as a court of appeal and interference is permissible only in cases of patent perversity or jurisdictional error.” 10. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court ie. Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr.,Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439 of 2024), decided on 19.12.2025, it has been observed that “mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not confer title. It has further been held that where the document constituting the basis of mutation remains unchallenged and concurrent findings have been recorded by the revenue authorities, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is unwarranted in absence of any jurisdictional error or patent illegality.” 11. Thus, the High court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, ought not to interfere with the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities unless the orders suffer from jurisdictional error or manifest illegality. 12. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded by subordinate courts or tribunals. Interference is warranted only where the impugned orders suffer from patent perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdictional error apparent on 6 the face of the record. 14. In the present case also, the registered gift deed forming the basis of mutation has admittedly not been challenged by the petitioner before any competent forum. The revenue authorities have concurrently affirmed the mutation and no jurisdictional infirmity or perversity is demonstrated so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Keeping in view the fact that the registered gift deed executed in favour of the respondent remains unchallenged, notice was published before certification of mutation and concurrent findings have been recorded by all the revenue authorities, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law before the competent forum, if so advised. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge