1 2026:CGHC:22507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4475 of 2022 1 - Rajkumar S/o Baisakhu Ram Satnami Aged About 67 Years. 2 - Smt Samokhan Bai Wd/o Late Shri Birij Satnami Aged About 52 Years. 3 - Radhabai D/o Late Shri Birij Satnami Aged About 30 Years. 4 - Parvati D/o Birij Satnami Aged About 28 Years. 5 - Guneshwar S/o Late Shri Birij Satnami Aged About 22 Years. 6 - Mannu S/o Late Shri Birij Satnami Aged About 20 Years. 7 - Minor Vidya D/o Late Shri Birij Satnami Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Samokhan Bai, W/o Late Shri Birij Satnam. All R/o - Village - Bharseli, P.H. No.-07, Tahsil - Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhtapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Girwar Lal S/o Kamta Prasad Verma Aged About 57 Years. 2 - Dashodha Bai Wd/o Anand Ram Verma Aged About 47 Years. 3 - Bhola @ Arun S/o Anand Ram Verma Aged About 27 Years. 4 - Dhannu @ Satish S/o Anand Ram Verma, presently aged about 25 years. All are R/o - Village – Bharseli, Tehsil Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhtapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Akash Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.20 15:24:44 +0530 2 the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur in Revenue Case No.RN/21/R/A- 6/89/2020 whereby, revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur C.G which in turn arose out of the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. in Revenue Appeal case No.31/A-6, year 2016-17, has been rejected. 2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of CERTIORARI quashing the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) and the subordinate courts. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or order as deem fit in the interest of justice. 10.3 That it is therefore Hon'ble court may kindly be please to call the records of courts below. 3. The dispute pertains to land bearing Khasra No. 196/20, area 0.405 hectares situated at Mauja Bharseli, Teshil Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. Respondent No. 01 and one Anand Ram filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking correction of revenue records on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 17.02.1995 (No. 3036) allegedly executed by Tetki Bai, Birij Lal and petitioner Rajkumar & others in their favour for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. The Tahsildar, by order dated 05.04.1999, allowed the application and directed correction of revenue entries in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved, the petitioner and Birij preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baloda-Bazar in Revenue Case No. 31-A/06/2016-17. The SDO, vide order dated 31.08.2017, dismissed the appeal relying upon the said sale 3 deed. A second appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Raipur Division (Appeal Case No. 147-A-06/2017-18). By order dated 17.03.2020, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders of the Tahsildar and SDO. Notably, the Commissioner observed that the registered sale deed was not produced before the court and was not part of the lower court record, yet relied upon the Tahsildar’s order to dismiss the appeal. A revision filed thereafter by the petitioners was also dismissed on the ground of concurrent findings of the courts below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mother of the petitioner has never executed any sale deed in favour of Respondent No.1. He submits that the sale deed in question was only executed for formal purposes (loan transaction) and the possession of the land was never delivered to the respondents, as such, the sale deed as claimed to be executed by mother of the petitioner in favour of Respondent No.1 is non est in the eyes of law, therefore, on the basis of such sale deed, no mutation order can be passed in favour of Respondent No.1.The impugned orders have been passed without proper consideration of the relevant documents available on record and without appreciating the true facts and legal position governing Government-allotted land, rendering the orders illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that sale deed in question has been duly executed by the mother of the petitioner in favour of Respondent No.1, as such, when an application for mutation has been filed by the respondents, the same has been considered and order in favour of the respondents for mutation has been passed. He further submits that if the petitioner seeks cancellation of the sale deed dated 17.02.1995 then he may approach the concerned authority 4 challenging the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition carefully. 7. From the perusal of the record and upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the parties, it appears that the main contention raised by the petitioners is to the effect that the sale deed dated 17.02.1995 has not been executed by the mother of the petitioner, instead it was registered for formal purposes (loan transaction) in favour of Respondent No.1 and on the said basis, the rights whatsoever accrued in favour of Respondent No.1 has never been conferred upon Respondent No.1. Even the possession of the subject land has not been given to Respondent No.1, as such, no mutation order could have been passed in favour of Respondent No.1. 8. The Board of Revenue vide order 07.10.2020 has observed that the applicants/ petitioners have assailed the mutation entry recorded in favour of the respondents, despite the fact that such transfer was effected on the basis of a valid and legally enforceable title acquired through a duly executed and registered sale deed and if the petitioners want to challenge the title acquired through a registered deed, they have to file a suit in the competent court. 9. It is well settled that mutation entries in revenue records neither create nor extinguish title; they are made only for fiscal purposes. Where the respondents have acquired title through a registered instrument, the proper remedy available to the petitioners if they dispute the validity of such title is to institute a substantive civil suit before the competent Civil Court seeking declaration and other consequential reliefs. 10. In view of this Court , if the dispute is in respect of the execution of the sale deed 5 itself as alleged by the petitioners, then the proper remedy would be to file an appropriate civil suit before the concerned civil court while challenging the sale deed dated 17.02.1995. 11. For the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the Board of Revenue has not committed any error of law while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. The findings of the Board of Revenue are based on proper appreciation of the material available on record and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash