1 CGHC010493332025 2026:CGHC:32783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6259 of 2025 Judgment Reserved On : 01.07.2026. Judgment Delivered On : 30.07.2026. Kamal Narayan Sahu S/o Late Rajau Ram Sahu, Aged About 66 Years R/o House No. 38, Vip Road, Village- Temri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajesh Dani S/o Late Bala Saheb Dani, R/o Dani Bada, Budhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) Circuit Court At Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 17/10/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No.R.N./14/R/A- AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.03 10:09:18 +0530 2 6/299/2024 arising out of order dated 14/10/2024 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Respondent No.3/Commissioner, Raipur Division in Appeal Case No.202310970100022/22/A-06/2023-24 arising out of order dated 11/10/2023 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Respondent No.4 in Revenue Appeal Case No.202303111100110 A/6/2022-23 arising out of order dated 13/03/2023 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Respondent No.5 in Revenue Case No. 202302114000003A/6/2022-23. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that grand-father of Respondent No.1 has purchased a property in the name of minor son-in-law namely Shailesh from one Sulochana Bai vide registered sale deed dated 18/01/1969 by which the property situated at Village-Kolar, Tahsil & District- Raipur (the then P.H. No. 124), R.I. Circle & Block Abhanpur, bearing Khasra No.132/11, 156/11, 156/12 and 156/13, total area of 49.35 decimal. Thereafter, vide registered sale deed 09/12/1970, the land bearing Khasra No. 156/12 and 156/13 has been sold by minor Shailesh to his brother minor Rajesh. On 20/05/1981, Respondent No.1 through his father has sold part of Khasra No.156/12 area 2.50 acres to the petitioner and minor sons of the petitioner Rekhram and Ghanshyam who died issueless and after sale of the property, the Khasra Number was recorded in the revenue records and Rinpustika in the name of the petitioner. Against the father of the respondent no. 1, a Ceiling Case No.07/B-90(3)/1977-78 has been registered in which orders have been passed against and in favour of the father of Respondent No.1, but neither the lands have been recorded in the name of the State Government nor the possession has been taken by the State Government under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling of Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 (which will be 3 referred herein after as "the Ceiling Act, 1960" for brevity). During the pendency of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act, 1960 on 19/04/2021, the original holder of the land i.e. Bala Saheb Dani who is the father of the Respondent No.1 died, therefore, the Respondent No.1 along with his brother i.e. Shailesh Dani and other holder of the land has filed an application before the competent authority in the pending ceiling case in which, on 09/11/2022, an order was passed in favour of Rajesh Dani, Shailesh Dani and other holder of the land that as per the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1960, Rajesh Dani, Shailesh Dani and other holder of the land are entitled to hold 30-30 acres of the land. Therefore, the proceeding under the Ceiling Act, 1960 has been closed and the land has been recorded in the name of Rajesh Dani, Shailesh Dani and other holder of the land in the revenue record. Against the order dated 09/11/2022, Bharti Sahu and others have preferred a revision before the respondent no.2 which was registered as Revision Case No. R.N./8/12/5-90(3)/238/2024 in which respondent no.2 vide order dated 13/10/2025 has set aside the order dated 09/11/2022 and remanded back the matter to the Competent Authority, Raipur Division, Raipur to comply with the provisions of Section 4, 11 and 12 of the Ceiling Act, 1960 after giving the opportunity of hearing to all the interested persons of the land. As the petitioner has purchased the land vide registered sale deed and on account of the ceiling proceeding, the name of the petitioner has been struck off from the revenue records. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Respondent No. 5 for mutation on the basis of sale-deed and possession of the land. Tahsildar vide order dated 13/03/2023 has 4 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that since the land was not recorded in the name of the petitioner, therefore, the provisions of Section 109 & 110 of the Code, 1959 is not attracted and therefore, the application was rejected. Against the order dated 13/03/2023, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code, 1959 before the Respondent No. 4 which was registered as Revenue Case No.202303111100110A/6/2022-23 and the Respondent No.4 vide order dated 11/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed for mutation of the land of the petitioner on the ground that there was a registered deed in favour of the petitioner which has neither been challenged nor cancelled by any competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled for mutation. Being aggrieved of the order dated 11/01/2023, the Respondent No.1 has preferred an appeal under Section 44 (2) of the Code, 1959 before the Respondent No.3 which was registered as Appeal Case No.202310970100022/22/A-06/2023-24 and the Commissioner vide order dated 14/10/2024 has allowed the appeal of the Respondent No.1 on the ground that there was an order dated 09/11/2022 by which, it was directed by the Respondent No.3 in ceiling case that the land be recorded in the name of the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, complying with the order dated 09/11/2022, the land will be recorded in the name of Respondent No.1. Being aggrieved of the order 14/10/2024, the petitioner and other land holders who have purchased the land from the Respondent No.1 has preferred a revision under Section 50 of the Code, 1959 before the Respondent No.2 along with an application under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 for grant of interim relief. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 14/10/2024 has rejected the application 5 filed under Section 52 of the Code, 1959 against which, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) No.66/2025 before this Court and vide order dated 08/01/2025, this Court was pleased to grant interim relief in favour of the petitioner. Vide order dated 17/10/2025, the Board of Revenue along with other revisions has decided the revision of the petitioner also on the ground that the facts and laws of the case of one Ramadhar Sahu and Anr. are similar, therefore, the revision of the petitioner has also been dismissed upholding the order passed by the Respondent No. 5 and set aside the order passed by the Respondents No. 3 and 4. The finding recorded by the Respondents No.2 while setting-aside the order of Respondent No.3 dated 14/10/2024 is that the order dated 09/11/2022 has been challenged before the Respondent No.2 and the same has been allowed vide order dated 13/10/2025 and order dated 09/11/2022 has been set-aside and the matter has been remanded back to the competent Court under the Ceiling Act, 1960. Hence this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale deed which was executed in favor of the petitioner on 09/12/1970 by Rajesh Dani- respondent no.1 is still in existence, therefore, the order passed by the respondent no.4 on 11/10/2023 is a well-reasoned order and the petitioner is entitled for the mutation of the land. He submits that respondent no.2 has passed a cryptic order without assigning any reason that as to why the mutation cannot be done in favor of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 failed to see the reason assigned by the respondent no.4 that there was a registered sale deed in favor of the petitioner and the same was not challenged nor has been cancelled by any competent court having such jurisdiction, as such, 6 entitlement of the petitioner for mutation of the land cannot be denied. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that real owner of part of khasra no.156/12 area admeasuring about 2.50 acres hectare is Rajesh Dani. As the suit property was purchased in the name of minor by Bala Saheb Dani and further the ceiling case was registered against Bala Saheb Dani which also includes the suit land and the sale deed was executed by the Bala Saheb Dani after initiation of the ceiling case and the said sale deed was executed without taking appropriate permission from Collector, therefore, any sale deed if executed for any land under ceiling act then permission from Collector as per Section 5 of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, is necessary and if any sale is made without permission, then that sale deed becomes void-ab initio itself. Further, it is submitted that sale deed executed after initiation of ceiling proceedings were verified by the competent ceiling officer and by the order dated 05.12.1985, the sale deeds executed by the Bala Saheb Dani was declared illegal and void and thereafter, the excess land was vested with the government. It was specifically stated that the Bala Saheb Dani had sold the land after appointed date just to defend the provisions of Ceiling Act. It is further submitted, for the sake of argument, if it is to be believed that sale deed executed by the respondent no.1 through Bala Saheb Dani is correct then also it is necessary to take permission before executing sale deed in behalf of the minor which is also not complied in the present case. Therefore, the petitioner's ownership and contention cannot be accepted in any level as the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner is illegal and void from the very beginning as suit land was purchased in name of minor but the sale deed was executed in favour of 7 petitioner by Bala Saheb Dani, further no prior permission was taken from appropriate authority before execution of sale deed in favour of petitioner and the said sale deed is already declared illegal and void by the order dated 05.12.1985. Therefore, the petitioner is not having any case in his favour. Further, the competent authority by order dated 09.11.2022 mutated the name of respondent no.1 along with his brother i.e. Shailesh Dani in the suit property and ended the ceiling case no. 07/B-90(3) year 1977-78. It is submitted that the father of the respondent no.1 along with suit land sold other lands during pendency of ceiling case. One of the parties challenged the order dated 09.11.2022 before the Board of Revenue and by the order dated 13.10.2025 Board of Revenue set aside the order dated 09.11.2022 and directed the competent authority to decide again after hearing all interested party. The competent authority on 30.04.2026 again passed the order in favour of the respondent no.1 and mutated the name of respondent no.1 along with his brother in the revenue records. The present writ petition is only an attempt to get a things done indirectly which cannot be achieved directly. It is respectfully submitted that adjudication regarding entitlement is already been done and name of respondent no.1 along with Shailesh Dani had already been mutated in some of the properties. The petitioner ought to have challenged the order dated 05.12.1985, 30.04.2026 or to file civil suit regarding their claim as owner through their sale deed, the petitioner is not entitled to get any property which were held to be entitled by respondent under the Ceiling on Agricultural Holding, Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition carefully. 8 6. It appears that the petitioner has filed an application for mutation under Sections 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 20.05.1981 in respect of 2.50 acre, 1.013 hectare, part of Khasra No.156/12 (new Khasra No.156/70) situated at village Kolar, PHN 124 (new PHN 4) Tehsil Abhanpur District Raipur C.G., stating it to be purchased from Respondent No.1 and other respective owners. It was also stated that proceedings were initiated under the Ceiling of Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 and the subject land was declared to be additional land and the same was vested with the State Government and was recorded in the name of State in revenue records. 7. The Tehsildar vide its order dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure P/4) rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation on the ground that the subject land is recorded in the name of State of Madhya Pradesh which was acquired under the ceiling Act and it is not recorded in the name of seller of the land, as such, name of petitioner cannot be mutated in respect of the subject land. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner against the order dated 13.03.2023 of Tehsildar, moved before Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Abhanpur, District Raipur C.G by filing Revenue Appeal No.202303111100110, A/6, year 2022-2023, which was allowed on 11.10.2023 (Annexure P/3) by the SDO who directed for mutation of the land in the name of the petitioner in respect of Khasra No.156/70, rakba 1.013 hectare on the ground that there was registered deed in favour of the petitioner which has neither been challenged nor cancelled by any competent authority. 9. Assailing the order dated 11.10.2023 of SDO (Revenue ), Respondent No.1 moved before Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur C.G. by filing Appeal 9 case No.202310970100022/22, A-06, year 2023-24 which was allowed by the Commissioner on 14.10.2024 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 11.10.2023 of SDO was set aside as vide order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner in ceiling case, it was directed that the subject land be recorded in name of Respondent No.1. The Commissioner has also held that the subordinate court, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Abhanpur did not consider Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 under which transfer cannot be made without permission. Similarly, in Ceiling Case No. 7/B-90 (3) / 1977-78, the order dated 05.12.1985 of the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, regarding declaring the sale as void as it was benami, contrary to the provisions of the Agricultural Holding Ceiling Act, 1960, was also not considered by the subordinate court. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner against the order dated 14.10.2024 of Commissioner, moved before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh by filing Revenue Revision case No.RN/14/R/A-6/299/2024 which was rejected on 17.10.2025 and the Board of Revenue upheld the order passed by Tehsildar dated 13.03.2023, and has set aside the orders dated 14.10.2024, 11.10.2023 passed by Commissioner, Raipur and SDO Abhanpur, respectively, leading to the present writ petition. 11.From the perusal of impugned order dated 17.10.2025, it appears that the questioned sale deed was executed by the Rajesh Dani, Respondent No.1, who was minor at that time, inspite of the fact that in earlier ceiling proceedings bearing No.7/B-90(3)/1977-78 vide order dated 23.03.1979, excess land of father of Respondent No.1 which includes suit land has been vested with the State Government. In the aforesaid ceiling case, final order 10 was passed on 09.11.2022 by the Competent Authority-cum-Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur wherein, excess land of father of Respondent No.1 was released from ceiling proceedings and name of Respondent No.1 and his brother namely Shailesh Dani was directed to be recorded in the revenue records. 12.It is also evident that due to continuation of ceiling proceedings, the transfer made in the favour of the petitioner was not declared valid as said ceiling case was pending for consideration, in which, final order was passed on 09.11.2022, as such, contention of the petitioner that they have purchased the land earlier would not entitle them to seek mutation on the basis of sale deed, in which, the sellers were not entitled to execute sale deed due to pendency of ceiling proceedings under the ceiling act before the competent authority. The land in question was never released from the ceiling proceedings, as such, even if any sale deed was executed prior to that, it will not give any benefit to the petitioner. The land in question was recorded in the name of Rajesh son of Balasaheb Dani. It is undisputed that Rajesh was minor at the time of execution of sale deed and his guardian has sold the property, as such, the entitlement of the seller to execute sale deed in respect of property during the concurrency of ceiling proceedings was not decided, as such, even if any sale deed got executed, the petitioner will not derive any right on the basis of such a sale deed. The pendency of ceiling proceedings would disentitle the petitioner from the fruits of sale deed as seller was not having competency to execute such sale deed due to pendency of ceiling case. 11 13.In this matter, it would be apt to refer the judgment of MP High Court in the case of Kalibai & Another vs. Government of M.P. & Another reported in 1987 Revenue Nirnay 315, wherein it has been held that before culmination of ceiling proceedings and before final decision in accordance with Section 11 of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, any transfer in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 is illegal and void. 14.The aforesaid view has further been reiterated by the High Court of MP at Indore in the matter of Madanlal and Ors vs. Laxminarayan and Others, reported in 2022 Lawsuit (MP) 1858, paragraph 18 of which reads as under:- “18. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that land which is effected by the provisions of the Act, 1960 cannot be sold, sub divided, gifted, exchanged, leased or otherwise be transferred until a final order is passed under Section 11 except with the permission in writing of the Collector. The same also includes an award or order of any lawful authority. The section thus provides for restriction on transfer of land which is effected by the Ceiling proceedings. As per plaintiff, he and defendants entered into an agreement for the purpose of defeating the aforesaid provision by entering into agreement to the effect that they would institute a suit in the Civil Court and get declaration in respect of the lands done in such a manner that the lands would fall outside the purview of the provisions of the Act. They thus intended to do indirectly what they were specifically prohibited to do under the Act and decided to misuse the process of the Court for fulfilling their objective. The agreement between plaintiff and defendants, which plaintiff intends to enforce in this suit, was thus clearly aimed to defeat the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1960 and the object or consideration for the same was not lawful…” 15.It is also evident that final order dated 30.04.2026 has been passed by the Competent Authority-cum-Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur, C.G. which was remanded to him by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, 12 Raipur C.G. vide order dated 13.10.2025 as the Board of Revenue set aside the order dated 9.11.2022. Vide order dated 30.04.2026, the Competent Authority-cum-Commissioner Raipur Division Raipur has held that under Section 5 of the Act of 1960 any transfer without permission of Collector would be invalid and if any subsequent transfer is made, the same will also be invalid and void ab initio. Under Section 4 of the Act of 1960, the onus is upon the transferor to give evidence that the transfer was in accordance with law. The land in dispute was directed to be recorded in the name of Rajesh Dani and Shailesh Dani. 16.Since the order passed under the ceiling act has never been challenged by the present petitioner and further, the competent authority under the Ceiling Act, 1960 i.e. Commissioner Raipur Division has passed orders for mutation vide order dated 30.04.2026. Accordingly, unless and until the said order is annulled by the competent court of law, no order for mutation can be passed in favour of the petitioner in light of the provisions contained under Section 5 and 11 of Ceiling Act, 1960 . 17.The petitioner relies upon the registered sale deed. Mere existence of a registered sale deed, however, does not automatically entitle a person to mutation where the transfer itself is alleged to be void under a statutory enactment and has been so treated by the competent authority exercising jurisdiction under the Ceiling Act. 18.In view of the aforesaid legal position, unless the orders passed under the Ceiling Act are set aside by a competent forum, the petitioner cannot claim mutation solely on the strength of the sale deed. 13 19. The dispute raised by the petitioner essentially concerns the validity of the sale deed, competency of the transferor to execute the transfer, and correctness of the orders passed under the Ceiling Act. These issues require adjudication before the appropriate competent forum and cannot be conclusively determined in mutation proceedings. 20.The Board of Revenue has therefore committed no jurisdictional error in affirming the rejection of the mutation application. 21.In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that where the execution of the sale deed, the competency of the transferor, and the validity of the transfer under the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 are themselves under dispute and stand governed by subsisting orders passed by the competent authority, no direction for mutation can be issued in favour of the holder of such sale deed until those orders are set aside in accordance with law. 22.Accordingly, the Writ Petition being bereft of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge 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 01.07.2026 30.07.2026 ------ 03.08.2026