1 CGHC010353252022 2026:CGHC:33374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4609 of 2022 Order Reserved on: 2.7.2026 Order Delivered on: 3.8.2026 1. Amoldas S/o Bisauha Satnami Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Karhi, P.H. No. 35, Tahhsil And District Bemetara (C.G.). 2. Smt. Putarbai W/o Shri Amolsingh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Karhi, P.H. No. 35, Tahhsil And District Bemetara (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 2. Commissioner Durg Division, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4. Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5. Tahsildar Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 6. Shatruhan S/o Gokul Satnami R/o Village Karhi, P.H. No. 35, Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated (Annexure P-2), passed by the 23.09.2022 respondent no. 4. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the record pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer seeking mutation of his name in respect of land bearing Plot No. 285/110, admeasuring 2,345 sq. ft., on the ground that he was in possession of the said land. The petitioner filed objections contending that he was in possession of the disputed property on the strength of an unregistered agreement executed in his favour. 3 Initially, the mutation application was rejected by the competent authority, however, in appeal, the appellate authority, vide order dated 09.07.2021, set aside the earlier order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Pursuant to the remand, the Sub- Divisional Officer, vide impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed in Revenue Case No. 25/A-6/2008-09, allowed the mutation application and directed mutation of the name of respondent No. 6 in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on the ground that the dispute between the parties relates to title and possession over the land, which is essentially a private civil dispute and, therefore, falls outside the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as the revenue authorities exceeded the limited scope of mutation proceedings by adjudicating disputed questions relating to title and possession of the property. It was contended that mutation proceedings are confined to maintaining revenue records and do not confer or determine title. In view of the provisions of Section 111 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, disputes involving rival claims between private parties are required to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court, and the revenue authorities are duty-bound to relegate the parties to the Civil Court instead of deciding their rights. It was further submitted that reliefs such as declaration of title, possession, partition and injunction fall exclusively within the 4 jurisdiction of the Civil Court and cannot be indirectly decided in mutation proceedings. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 235 of 2020 decided on 16.09.2021, learned counsel argued that the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities is limited and, therefore, the impugned order directing mutation in favour of respondent No. 6 is without authority of law and deserves to be set aside. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tarachandra vs. Bhawarlal and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 15077/2025 on 19.12.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer has exercised the jurisdiction vested under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code while deciding the mutation proceedings and has merely directed mutation of the name of respondent No. 6 in the revenue records on the basis of the material available on record. It was further submitted that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and are maintained only for fiscal purposes and do not confer or determine title over the property. Therefore, the impugned order does not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to establish his title before the competent Civil Court. It was contended that no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity has been committed by the revenue authorities warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its 5 writ jurisdiction and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners have not placed on record any document to establish their lawful title or entitlement over the disputed property. Their claim is founded solely on the basis of alleged possession of the land. On the other hand, respondent No. 6 asserts his claim on the strength of an agreement, which, according to the findings recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), is, in substance, in the nature of a gift deed. Taking into consideration the said document and the material available on record, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) ordered mutation of the disputed land in favour of respondent No. 6 in the revenue records and, consequently, rejected the claim preferred by the present petitioners. 7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present dispute gives rise to serious and disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claim entitlement over the disputed property merely on the basis of 6 possession, whereas respondent No. 6 asserts his right on the strength of the aforesaid agreement. Thus, the controversy essentially pertains to the determination of title over the disputed property, which necessarily requires appreciation of evidence and adjudication of disputed factual issues. Such an exercise falls exclusively within the domain of the competent Civil Court. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.09.2022. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court for establishing their title, right, or interest, if any, over the suit property. It is well settled that an entry in the revenue records, including an order of mutation, is maintained only for fiscal purposes and does not by itself confer, create, extinguish, or determine title to the property in question. 8. The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the matter of Govind Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2026 SCC Online Chh 8493, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has observed as under:- “16. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Shubhas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam, (2021) 20 SCC 454 has held as under: "26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the 7 High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable." 17. Subsequently, in Union of India v. Puna Hinda, (2021) 10 SCC 690, the Supreme Court has observed: "24. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallised. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptance of joint survey report by the competent authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time. Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement books of the work executed from time to time would form a reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to the writ petitioner, but such process 8 could be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e. arbitration and not by the writ court as it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or construction of roads." 18. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd.. (2023) 2 SCC 703, while dealing with the issue of exercise of writ jurisdiction by a Court in matters arising out of a contract, has stated: "82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a writ petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the writ petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the writ court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may 9 relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit." (emphasis supplied) 19. A reading of the aforesaid judgments makes it clear that it is well settled proposition of law that when there are disputed question of facts involved in a case, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be proper.” 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail their appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court for adjudication of their title and other consequential rights, if so advised. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, and all questions relating to title, possession, and other incidental issues shall remain open to be decided independently by the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat