1 2026:CGHC:22452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4868 of 2021 Judgment Reserved On :24.03.2026 Judgment Delivered On : 13.05.2026. Ghasiram @ Ghasiya S/o Shri Chandi Aged About 73 Years R/o Village And Post Nawapara (Amoda),thana Nawagarh, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Bilaspur Divison Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tahsildar Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6 - Dashram (Died) Through Lrs. 6. (A) Narmada Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Dasharam Sahu Caste Sahu R/o Village And Post Nawapara (Amoda), Thana Nawagarh, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6. (B) Amritlal Sahu S/o Late Shri Dasharam Sahu Caste Sahu R/o Village And Post Nawapara (Amoda), Thana Nawagarh, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6. (C) Smt. Malechhin Bai Sahu W/o Late Shri Dasharam Sahu Caste Sahu R/o Village And Post Nawapara (Amoda), Thana Nawagarh, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajendra Patel appears on behalf of Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocates. For State/Res : Shri Arpit Agrawal, PL. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.18 18:31:50 +0530 2 For Respondent No.6 (A) and 6 (B) : Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the President, Chhattisgarh Revenue Board Bilaspur C.G. in Case No.R.N./06/R/A-6/174/2018 whereby, order dated 09.06.2015 passed by Tehsildar and order dated 25.07.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Officer were not interfered with and order dated 01.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner has been set aside. The Revision filed by Respondent Nos.6 (A) to 6 (C)was allowed and it was directed that in respect of Dasharam son of late Ghasiya, name of his legal heirs i.e. Respondent Nos. 6(A) to 6 (C)herein be recorded in the revenue records. 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 appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue. 10.2 That the respondent's authority may kindly be directed to produce all the records which relates to passing of the impugned order for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 3. At the outset, it is clarified that petitioner namely Ghasiram @ Ghasiya is son of Chandi . Respondent No.6 (A) and 6 (B) are legal heirs of Dasharam who is the son of Ghasiya S/o Mohar Sai. The dispute essentially arises on account of similarity of names between “Ghasiya S/o Mohar Sai” and “Ghasiram @ Ghasiya S/o Chandi Sahu.” 3 4. Necessary facts of the case are the Respondent No.6 Dasharam had filed an application for mutation of his name in revenue records in respect of Khasra No. 1026 area 2.02 acre on 05.12.2011 before Tehsildar, Janjgir District Janjgir Champa on the ground that his father namely Ghasiya s/o Mohar Sai died 5-6 years ago and he is the only heir, therefore, his name ought to be recorded in the revenue records. In regard to the said application, Tahsildar Janjgir issued a Ishtehar inviting objections and thereafter passed the order on 13.03.2012 for recording the name of Dasharam S/o Ghasiya S/o Mohar Sai in the revenue records against the aforementioned khasra number. Thereafter, Dasharam S/o Ghasiya S/o Mohar Sai again filed an application dated 27.06.2013 for correction of revenue records mentioning that the land is recorded in the name of Ghasiram @ Ghasiya S/o Chandi Sahu which is wrongly recorded though the said land belongs to his father Ghasiya S/o Mohar Sai. Due to common name, the mistake has been committed by the revenue officer. The said application dated 27.06.2013 of Dasharam was allowed by the Tahsildar, Janjgir, vide order dated 09.06.2015 and it was directed to delete the name of petitioner from the revenue records in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1026 rakba 0.817 hectare and record the name of Dasharam s/o Ghasiya s/o Mohar Sai and directed for the correction of records. The petitioner filed the appeal against the order dated 09.06.2015 before the court of Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa C.G. which was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2016 (Annexure P/4).The petitioner thereafter has filed the second appeal before the court of Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur C.G. against the order dated 25.07.2016 and placed the revenue documents of the year 1987-88 to 1991- 1992 before the said Court as in all those documents, name of the petitioner is 4 mentioned in the revenue record as owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 1026 rakba 2.02 acre. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, learned Commissioner vide order dated 01.05.2018 (Annexure P/5) allowed the second appeal of the petitioner and and set aside the order dated 25.07.2016 of SDO (Revenue) as well as order dated 09.06.2015 of Tahsildar Janjgir. Legal heirs of Dasharam i.e. Respondent Nos.6 (A) and 6 (B) filed a revision petition before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur which allowed the revision petition of Respondent No.6 (A) and (B) and set aside the order dated 01.05.2018 of Commissioner Bilaspur Division and restored the order dated 09.06.2015 passed by the Tahsildar and order dated 25.07.2016 of SDO. The Board of revenue has come to the conclusion that the land was wrongly recorded in the name of petitioner and further it has been observed that the petitioner had not participated before the Tahsildar after service of notice and in the revenue record of the year 1985-86, land is recorded in the name of Ghasiya S/o unknown. According to Khasra Panchshala of the year 2003-04, name of Ghasiram has been registered and an arrow mark has been mentioned therein indicating “alias Ghasiya”. It is not clear as to from which order or memorandum, the said arrow mark has been inserted and it is clear that by fraud, the Ghasiram @ Ghasiya has been mentioned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed by the Board of Revenue against the provisions contained in section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and rules made thereunder as the revisional court has to see the jurisdictional error, if any, apparent from the record but no reasons has been assigned while setting aside the well reasoned order dated 01.05.2018 of the Commissioner. At the time of passing of the 5 impugned order, Board of revenue has no where considered the fact that the land in question was recorded in the name of petitioner since the year 1987 however, all of a sudden, Dasharam filed the application in the year 2011 for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of the land in question though he was never in possession of the land in question and in no occasion, he cultivated the land in question. Dasharam and his legal heirs have not produced any documents before the authority to show that the land in question was allotted to Dasharam or his father namely Ghasiya s/o Mohar Sai in the year 1975 and only the oral plea of the respondent was considered by the authority at the time of passing the impugned order. The Board of Revenue has acted against the law at the time of deciding the application of revision though in the revision, the court has to see only the legality and validity of the order under challenge, it cannot consider or re-appreciate the evidence available on record. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.6 (A) & 6 (B) submits that order passed by the Board of Revenue is well merited which does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition carefully. 8. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the grandfather of legal heirs of Respondent-Dasharam, namely Ghasiya Sahu S/o Mohar Sai, was granted bhumiswami rights in the year 1975. After his demise, his son Dasharam moved an application seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records in place of his deceased father. The Tehsildar, after issuing public notice (Ishtehar) and calling for a report from the concerned Patwari, recorded the name of Dasharam S/o Ghasiya S/o Mohar Sai in the revenue records. 6 9. Subsequently, Dasharam preferred another application dated 27.06.2013 for correction of the revenue entries on the ground that the land had been wrongly recorded in the name of the present petitioner, namely Ghasiram @ Ghasiya S/o Chandi Sahu, due to similarity of names. The Tehsildar held that Ghasiya Sahu S/o Mohar Sai, who is the father of Dasharam, was granted patta in respect of the property in question in the year 1975. In the record of rights, name of Ghasiya has been recorded with regard to property in question. However, name of Ghasiya S/o Chandi Sahu has not been recorded in the record of rights with the regard to Khasra No.1026. In relation to Khasra No.1026 rakba 2.02 acre, name of Ghasiya S/o Unknown has been recorded in the B1 of the year 1985- 86. In the B1 of the year 2012-13, suit property was recorded in the name of Ghasiya S/o Chandi. The said confusion happened due the similarity of names. Accordingly, by order dated 09.06.2015, the Tehsildar directed deletion of the petitioner’s name and restoration of the name of Dasharam S/o Ghasiya S/o Mohar Sai. The said order was affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 25.07.2016. 10. The Commissioner, in second appeal, interfered with the concurrent findings and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. However, in revision, the Board of Revenue scrutinized the legality and correctness of the Commissioner’s order and found that the original grant of bhumiswami rights stood in the name of father of Dasharam namely Ghasiya Sahu S/o Mohar Sai and the Tehsildar did not commit any error while directing to record the name of Dashram in the revenue records. Accordingly, order dated 09.06.2015 passed by the Tehisildar and order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the SDO were restored and order dated 01.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner was set aside. 7 11. It is well settled that entries in revenue records can be altered only pursuant to an order passed by a competent authority in accordance with law. Patwaris or ministerial staff have no authority to modify or interpolate entries without due process. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the entry in favour of the petitioner was backed by any competent order. The Board of Revenue has examined this aspect in detail and has assigned cogent reasons while restoring the orders of the Tehsildar and the SDO as father of Dasharam namely Ghasiya Sahu son of Mohar Sai was granted bhumi swami rights and on that basis, his name was recorded in the revenue records. 12. It seems that the Commissioner has erred while passing the order dated 01.05.2018 as though in the Khasra Panchshala of the year 2003–04, the name of Ghasiram had been entered and an arrow mark indicating “alias Ghasiya” was inserted, however no order or memorandum authorizing such alteration was traceable on record. The Board of Revenue has rightly considered this aspect of the matter and rightly held the same to be illegal which is not required to be interfered with at this stage. 13. Moreover, the Tehsildar has passed a detailed order after considering the documents in respect of land in question such as Rin Pustika, B1 of the year 1985-86 as well as B1 of the year 2012-13 and as such, no illegality has been committed by the Board of Revenue while confirming the order passed by the Tehsildar as well as the SDO. Even otherwise also, the revenue records are recorded for the collection of revenue and if the parties are aggrieved by the order of mutation they are having recourse to seek declaration of their title in accordance with law by the competent civil jurisdictional court. 8 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 held in paragraph Nos.6 & 8 as under:- 6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made. 8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. 9 Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70. 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tarachandra vs. Bhawarlal and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2902 reiterated the observations made in the matter of Jitendra Singh (supra) and held in paragraph 20 as under:- 20. In Jitendra Singh (supra) this Court observed that if there is any dispute with respect to the title, more particularly when the mutation entry is sought on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right will have to approach the appropriate Civil Court/Revenue Court and get his rights adjudicated. However, in our view, this cannot be taken as a law proscribing mutation based on a will particularly where the legal heirs of the tenure holder raise no dispute. 16. For the above discussion and having regard to the limited scope of interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, patent illegality or violation of principles of natural justice so as to warrant interference. The Board of Revenue has examined the material available on record, assigned cogent reasons, and has merely restored the concurrent findings recorded by the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer, which were 10 based upon the original grant of bhumiswami rights in favour of the predecessor of Respondent No.6. No case is made out demonstrating that the revisional authority has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code or has re-appreciated the evidence in a manner impermissible in law. Furthermore, as mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer or extinguish title, the petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent civil court for declaration of title, in accordance with law. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 24.03.2026 13.05.2026 ------ 18.05.2026