1 2026:CGHC:23676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1880 of 2021 Order Reserved on: 15.4.2026 Order Delivered on: 15.6.2026 1 - Milan Bai Dewangan W/o Late Prahlad Dewangan Aged About 70 Years R/o Dewangan Para, Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 2 - Anil Dewangan S/o Late Prahlad Dewangan Aged About 54 Years R/o Dewangan Para, Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 3 - Ajay Dewangan S/o Late Prahlad Dewangan Aged About 51 Years R/o Dewangan Para, Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 4 - Anjani Dewangan D/o Late Prahlad Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Dewangan Para, Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Ashok Kumar S/o Late Ekadashiya Dhobi R/o Village Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Prembai W/o Late Dwadasiya Dhobi, R/o Village Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ganpat S/o Late Dwadasiya Dhobi R/o Village Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 5 - Santosh Kumar S/o Late Dwadasiya Dhobi R/o Village Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kartikeshwar S/o Late Dwadasiya Dhobi R/o Village Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 7 - Juber Memon @ Hanif Menon S/o L. Menon R/o Near Bdm Hospital, Champa, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh Kachra Bai D/o Bairagi Ram (Since Died) Asper The Information Of The Petitioners She Died In 2015 Itself. 8 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Champa District Janjgi-Champa Chhattisgarh. 9 - Tehsildar, Champa District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G. For Respondents No. 2, 3 & 5 : Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate on 3 behalf of Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 may kindly be set-aside and the application filed by respondent No. 2 to 6 may also kindly be rejected and the order of the Commissioner dated 11.01.2017 may kindly be restore in the interest of justice. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondents No. 2 to 6 moved an application before the Tehsildar, Janjgir-Champa, seeking mutation of their names on the basis of an alleged sale deed dated 18.10.1936 purportedly executed in favour of their grandfather Devram S/o Pilwa, however, while filing the said application, the respondents deliberately suppressed material facts, particularly the fact that the father of respondent No. 2, namely Ekadashiya Dhobi, had earlier filed a similar application for mutation, which was rejected by the Tehsildar, Champa vide 4 order dated 17.07.2000, and the said order had attained finality; it is further submitted that Ekadashiya Dhobi had also instituted a civil suit against Prahlad, father of the present petitioners, and Kachra Bai, claiming title on the basis of adverse possession, wherein the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2000 formed part of the proceedings, however, the said civil suit was ultimately dismissed for default, copy of the application filed by Ekadashiya Dhobi along with the order sheets and final order passed by the Tehsildar rejecting the mutation application, copy of the subsequent application filed in the year 2013–14 before the Tehsildar, Champa along with the relevant order sheets and the copy of the order passed by the Civil Court, however, despite the aforesaid facts, the Tehsildar, without affording any opportunity of hearing to Prahlad and Kachra Bai, passed the final order dated 25.07.2014 allowing mutation in favour of the private respondents. The private respondents obtained the said order by suppressing material facts, including the earlier rejection of the mutation application, despite being fully aware. Being aggrieved, Prahlad, father of the petitioners, and Kachra Bai preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Janjgir-Champa, however, the said appeal was dismissed mechanically and without proper application of mind vide order dated 30.11.2015. Thereafter a further appeal under Section 44(2) of the Land Revenue Code was preferred before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 11.01.2017 allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed 5 by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer, while recording categorical findings that the present petitioners are the successors of Prahlad Dewangan, Bairagi Ram, and Devram Dewangan, consists of the revenue records evidencing the title of the petitioners and their forefathers that the Commissioner also specifically held that no opportunity of hearing had been granted to the petitioners in the mutation proceedings, that there was no proof showing their participation in the proceedings, and that objections were wrongly recorded on their behalf, and consequently the orders passed by the Tehsildar and SDO were set aside. Thereafter respondents No. 2 to 6 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, vide the impugned order, set aside the well-reasoned order passed by the Commissioner and restored the orders of the Tehsildar and Sub- Divisional Officer without properly appreciating the provisions contained under Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The plaint and written statement respectively filed in the related civil proceedings. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application for mutation preferred by respondents No. 2 to 6 was filed after an inordinate delay of about 78 years and, therefore, the same was hopelessly barred by limitation, and no order of mutation could legally have been passed in their favour; it is further submitted that earlier, when a similar application for mutation had been moved before the concerned Tahsildar by the father of 6 respondents No. 2 to 6, namely Ekadashiya Dhobi, the same was rejected vide order dated 17.07.2000, and the said order was never challenged before any higher forum and, therefore, attained finality; learned counsel further submits that thereafter the father of respondents No. 2 to 6 had also instituted Civil Suit No. 756-A/2000 seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, which was duly contested by the opposite parties, however, the said civil suit came to be dismissed for non- prosecution vide order dated 26.07.2003, and the same was never restored thereafter, as a consequence of which the dismissal order also attained finality; it is contended that despite the aforesaid facts and earlier proceedings having attained finality, respondents No. 2 to 6, by suppressing all material facts, once again filed an application for mutation on 10.03.2014, which was mechanically allowed by the concerned Tahsildar without proper consideration of the earlier orders and proceedings; learned counsel further submits that at the relevant point of time no effective opportunity of hearing was granted to the father of the present petitioners before passing the mutation order; it is also submitted that though the appeal preferred by the father of the petitioners was dismissed, however, in the subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner, while allowing the appeal vide order dated 11.01.2017, specifically recorded a finding that no proper opportunity of hearing had been granted to the father of the present petitioners before passing the mutation order; it is 7 contended that thereafter respondents No. 2 to 6 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the order dated 11.01.2017, and the Board of Revenue, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, allowed the revision without properly considering the material facts, earlier proceedings, and settled legal principles governing mutation and limitation. 4. It is the specific case of the present petitioners that the disputed property was purchased through a valid sale transaction executed by the grandfather of respondents No. 2 to 6, pursuant to which the names of the forefathers of the petitioners were duly recorded in the revenue records as far back as the year 1954–55, and such entries have continued for decades; therefore, the subsequent attempt made by respondents No. 2 to 6 by filing a fresh application for mutation cannot be said to be justified or maintainable in law, particularly when an earlier mutation application filed by their predecessor-in-interest had already been rejected vide order dated 17.07.2000, which attained finality, and even the subsequent civil suit seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession was dismissed and never restored thereafter; thus, in view of the long-standing revenue entries in favour of the petitioners and the earlier proceedings having attained finality, the subsequent mutation proceedings initiated by respondents No. 2 to 6 were wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. 8 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the petitioner and supports the impugned orders, contending that the same have been passed strictly in accordance with law and do not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order subsequently passed by the concerned Tahsildar in the year 2014 vide order dated 10.03.2014 cannot be said to be justified or sustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore the appeal preferred by the father of the present petitioners before the Commissioner was rightly allowed; once the earlier application for mutation in respect of the very same property and between the same parties had already been rejected and such order had attained finality, any subsequent application for mutation concerning the same subject matter would clearly be barred by the principles of res judicata; the said principle finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Faime Makers Private Limited vs. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (3) Mumbai and Others, 2025 (5) SCC 772 wherein in paragraphs 25 and 28 it has been categorically held as follows:- 25. This position has been further reinforced in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India [Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604] which relies upon Ujjam Bai [Ujjam 9 Bai v. State of U.P., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 8] . In Abdul Kuddus [Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604] , this Court held that the opinion by the Foreigners Tribunal is a quasi-judicial order. Therefore, it would be incorrect to hold that the opinion of the Tribunal and/or the consequential order passed by the registering authority would not operate as res judicata. Further, it was established that any quasi-judicial authority would not ordinarily have the power to unilaterally take a contrary view taken by a coordinate or predecessor authority at an early point in time. 28. Without further burdening this order by entering into the other issues, we are satisfied that the impugned order [Faime Makers (P) Ltd. v. Registrar, Coop. Societies (3), 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2495] cannot be sustained. The second application filed by Respondent 2 Society under Section 11 of the 1963 Act before the competent authority, being Application No. 101 of 2021, deserves to be dismissed. However, the liberty granted in the first order of the competent authority dated 22-2- 2021, while rejecting Application No. 53 of 2020, would still be available to Respondent 2 Society but only after getting the complications resolved/sorted out before the appropriate court/forum.” 10 7. Further, once the name of the father and forefathers of the petitioners had been duly mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the sale deed executed by the grandfather of respondents No. 2 to 6 way back on 18.10.1939, and such entries continued in the revenue records for several decades without any lawful challenge, the same clearly establishes and strengthens the title and lawful possession of the forefathers of the petitioners over the disputed property, and such long-standing revenue entries cannot lightly be disturbed in subsequent proceedings initiated after an inordinate lapse of time. 8. The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Pratap Singh Rathiya and others vs. Madhusudan and others passed in SA No. 129/2002 on 21.2.2019, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has observed as under:- “Thus, on the basis of above-stated discussion, it is quite vivid that entry (Ex.P/1) is clearly prepared on the basis of jamabandi of the year 1954-55 which was record of rights prepared & maintained in accordance with Section 103 read with Section 115 of the Code of 1954 and it has presumptive value to be true under Section 105 (6) of the said Code and said entry has not been rebutted by leading 3AIR 1966 SC 1718 appropriate evidence on behalf of the defendants and as such, the plaintiff has established his title over the suit land. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs have 11 established the fact that their father has purchased the suit land from the defendants' father Sunder Sai in public auction and became title and possession holder, as such, the First Appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in reversing the well merited judgment and decree of the trial Court. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.” 9. The mutation application filed by respondents No. 2 to 6 is hopelessly barred by limitation, inasmuch as the same has been preferred after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly 78 years, whereas the prescribed period for filing such an application under the relevant provisions of law is only six months; therefore, the very initiation and entertainment of the mutation proceedings after such an extraordinary lapse of time is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme in the matter of Begum Suraiya Rashid and others vs. State of M.P. and others, 2006 (3) SCC 305, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “21. For the first time in 1989 an application was made under Section 109 of the Code for mutation purportedly on the strength of the order dated 2-3- 1954 passed by the Jagir Commissioner. The power under Section 109 can only be exercised by the authority in respect of any person lawfully acquiring a 12 right and such application shall also be filed within six months from the date of such acquisition. In the instant case, as already noted, the land in question was never lawfully acquired by the appellants as they were only the lessees paying Rs 375 to the jail authorities and there was no question of lawfully acquiring any right as contemplated under Section 109 of the Code. This apart, the right if any, is acquired lawfully by any person, such application must be made within six months from the date of such acquisition and therefore the application made for the first time in 1989 under Section 109 of the Code purportedly on the basis of the order dated 2-3- 1954 passed by the Jagir Commissioner was clearly an abuse of the process of law.” 11. The mutation proceedings in the present case cannot be said to have been conducted in accordance with law, and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the subsequent application for mutation filed in the year 2014 by respondents No. 2 to 6 was preferred by deliberately suppressing the material facts relating to the earlier rejection of the mutation application as well as the dismissal of the civil suit filed for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession; such suppression of material facts, coupled with the clear applicability of the principles of res judicata, vitiates the entire 13 proceedings, and therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances, and the legal position governing the field, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11.01.2017 and 11.02.2021 are hereby quashed and set aside being unsustainable in the eyes of law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat