1 2026:CGHC:22295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5879 of 2025 1 - Neerabai W/o Baratudas Manikpuri Aged About 60 Years R/o Kududand, Infront Of Sale Tax Office, P W D Office, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Srikant Singh S/o Chandrabhan Singh R/o Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Govind Rao S/o Malik Ram Mochi R/o Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Anil Kumar Saini S/o Late Khemchand Saini R/o Tada, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Presently R/o 48, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Anita Saini D/o Late Khemchand Saini R/o Tada, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Presently R/o 48, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Petitioner :- Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State :- Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 12.05.2026 1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and validity of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./02/R/A-6/525/2015, whereby the revision preferred by the respondents has been allowed and the order dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division has been set aside. The petitioner has further sought restoration of the order dated 30.05.2000 whereby mutation was directed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the dispute pertains to agricultural land bearing Khasra No.742/4 (area 3.12 acre) and Khasra No.742/5 (area 0.22 acre), total area 3.34 acre situated at Village Bharari, Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.). It is the case of the petitioner that the original holder of the property was her aunt namely Roopkunwar, who was issueless, and she executed a will dated 13.12.1983 and thereafter a registered will dated 10.01.1995 in favour of the petitioner. It is further pleaded that mutation entries were wrongly recorded in favour of the 3 respondents on the basis of alleged sale/fraudulent documents, which were later challenged by Roopkunwar herself before revenue authorities. The Tahsildar, Ganiyari initially passed an order dated 10.05.1999 in favour of the respondents, which was affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, in appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division vide order dated 30.05.2000 set aside the said orders and directed mutation in favour of the petitioner. The respondents challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue, which by the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 allowed the revision and restored the mutation in favour of the respondents. Hence, the present petition. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the respondent no.3. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 08/05/2025 passed in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./02/R/A-6/525/2015 passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Annexure P/1). 10.3 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue has acted in excess of its jurisdiction by entering into the 4 question of validity of the registered will executed in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order is based upon findings recorded in collateral proceedings as well as interim observations of the civil court, which have no binding evidentiary value in law. It is contended that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not confer or extinguish title, and therefore, the Board of Revenue could not have adjudicated upon the genuineness or validity of the registered will in such proceedings. It is further urged that unless and until the registered will is declared invalid by a competent civil court of jurisdiction, the same could not have been ignored in revenue proceedings. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the impugned order be set aside and the order dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner be restored. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.) is well-reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of the revenue record as well as the entire chain of mutation proceedings. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue has not committed any jurisdictional error in examining the correctness of the orders passed by the subordinate revenue authorities. It is contended that the petitioner’s claim is founded upon disputed documents including the alleged will, the genuineness of which is not free from doubt and has rightly been considered in the context of revenue entries and possession. It is also submitted that the 5 findings recorded by the authorities below are based upon material available on record and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The admitted position in the present case is that the dispute essentially arises out of mutation entries recorded in the revenue records pertaining to the land in question. It is well settled that mutation proceedings are undertaken only for fiscal purposes and do not create, confer, extinguish or declare title over immovable property. It is further a settled principle of law that issues relating to genuineness, validity or execution of a registered will fall within the exclusive domain of competent civil courts, and such questions cannot be adjudicated upon by revenue authorities in summary proceedings. 8. In the present case, the Board of Revenue has entered into the question of validity and effect of the registered will executed in favour of the petitioner, which clearly travels beyond the permissible scope of its jurisdiction in revenue revision proceedings. Moreover, in the absence of any declaration by a competent civil court holding the registered will to be invalid or unenforceable, the same could not have been disregarded merely 6 on the basis of findings recorded in revenue proceedings or collateral observations. However, this Court also finds that the petitioner has an efficacious and appropriate remedy available before the competent civil court for adjudication of his claim of title, if so advised. 9. In view of the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving disputed questions of title, this Court is not inclined to enter into a factual adjudication in the present proceedings. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.). 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing appropriate remedy before the competent civil court in accordance with law. 12. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha