1 CGHC010416572022 2026:CGHC:30618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 111 of 2023 Smt. Dashoda Bai Wd/o Harakh Ram Sahu Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Belaudi, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Commissioner Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Tahsildar Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6 - President Municipal Committee, Dhamtari, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, Tahsil And, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, Presently The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Mahavar W/o Late Hariram Mahavar R/o Vidhva Vinayak, Trading Company, Raipur Road, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 9 - Mohan Lal Mahavar W/o Late Hariram Mahavar R/o Vidhva Vinayak, Trading Company, Raipur Road, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.21 10:16:11 +0530 2 10 - Ishwar Mahavar S/o Late Hariram Mahavar R/o Vidhva Vinayak, Trading Company, Raipur Road, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 11 - Kishan Agrawal S/o Chauthmal Agrawal R/o Sadar Bazar, Math Mandir Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil And, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 12 - Shri G.S. Rathor Divisional Officer, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 13 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.7 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 20.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Revision Case No. RN/04/R/A-6/149/2015, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer and the Commissioner have been affirmed, resulting in setting aside of the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- 3 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ / or writs / order / or orders / to quashed the order dated 21.02.2018, (Annexure P/1), issued by the respondent no. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is claiming mutation in respect of the subject land on the basis of a registered Will and the Tahsildar, upon due consideration, had rightly directed mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records. It is contended that the said order of the Tahsildar has been illegally interfered with by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and ultimately by the Board of Revenue without assigning cogent reasons. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 21.02.2018 suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be set aside by restoring the order passed by the Tahsildar. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7/Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, submits that the land in question belongs to the Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari and, by 4 virtue of Government Notification No.224 dated 03.02.2013, the land stands vested in the Municipal Corporation, which is the lawful title holder as well as the person in possession thereof. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has no enforceable right to seek mutation over the said land. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition involves seriously disputed questions of fact, particularly with regard to the title over the subject property, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that there exists a serious dispute with regard to the title of the land and the petitioner is asserting her title primarily on the basis of a Will, this Court is of the considered opinion that such disputed questions of title cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The proper remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of her rights and title after leading appropriate evidence. 7. Accordingly, while declining to entertain the present writ petition, the petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate civil remedy available under law. 5 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be decided by the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh