1 CGHC010225942026 2026:CGHC:35769-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 692 of 2026 Ratnesh Jaiswal S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 52 Years R/o Mungeli Naka Bilaspur, Tehsil And District-Bilaspur (C.G.). Present Address-C-204, Real Heaven Apartment, Near Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Bodri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Halka Patwari Halka No. 1, Bodri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Pramila Pandey Wd/o Late Ashwini Pandey Aged About 60 Years R/o Devnandan Nagar, Phase- 2, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Apurva Pandey D/o Late Ashwini Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Devnandan Nagar, Phase- 2, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Parag Pandey S/o Late Ashwini Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Devnandan Nagar Phase- 2 Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Rameshwar Prasad Pandey S/o Kamla Prasad Pandey Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Dhamni Chakrabhata Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.13 17:21:28 +0530 2 9 - Savita Pandey D/o Kamla Prasad Pandey Aged About 54 Years R/o Ahead Of Bagdai Mandir, House No. 8, Block No. K-2, I.H.S.D.P., S.E.C.L. Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - Vijaya Laxmi Mishra D/o Kamla Prasad Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 34 Near Ganesh Mandir Railway Colony Shahdol, District Shahdol (M.P.) 11 - Shrawan Pandey S/o Late Raghunandan Prasad Pandey (Died), Through Legal Representative- 11.a Sudha Sharma Wd/o Late Shrawan Pandey Aged About 70 Years 11.b Praveen Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shrawan Pandey Aged About 47 Years 11.c Vandana Upadhyay D/o Late Shrawan Pandey Aged About 49 Years Respondent no.11.a to 11.c Resident Of House No. B-57, Phase- 01, Vijayapuram, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 12 - Rajni Pandey W/o Late Praduman Pandey Aged About 50 Years R/o Mata Choura House No. 48, Old Bus Stand Sarkanda, Tehsil And Disrict Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Smt. Akansha Pandey D/o Praduman Pandey Aged About 25 Years R/o Mata Choura House No. 48, Old Bus Stand Sarkanda, Tehsil And Disrict Bilaspur (C.G.) 14 - Adarsh Pandey S/o Praduman Pandey Aged About 28 Years R/o Mata Choura House No. 48, Old Bus Stand Sarkanda, Tehsil And Disrict Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4/State For Respondents No. 5 to 14 : : Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Mr.Nishikant Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 3 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr.Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State and Mr.Nishikant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 14. 2. The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.153/2025 by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners, who are now Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 in the present appeal. 3. Facts of the case are that the original petitioners, who are now arrayed as Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 in the present appeal, had filed the writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings bearing Revenue Case No. 202411075700001/B- 121/23-24, initiated by the Tahsildar, Bodri (Respondent No. 3), at the instance of the present Appellant/Respondent No. 5. The said proceedings were initiated for recording the alleged possession of the Appellant/Respondent No. 5 in Column No. 12 of the Khasra Panchshala in respect of Khasra Nos. 377, 378 and 379, admeasuring a total area of 7.49 acres, situated at Village Bodri, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The Hon’ble Single Bench, vide order dated 25.04.2026, allowed the writ petition. 4. The case of the present Appellant/Respondent No. 5 before the 4 learned Tahsildar was that an application had been submitted on the basis of an agreement dated 11.05.2014 executed between the concerned parties. The said agreement remains within the prescribed period and, in terms thereof, possession of the subject land had already been handed over to the present Appellant/Respondent No. 5. On the basis of the said application and the documents produced in support thereof, the Tahsildar, Bodri initiated proceedings under Rule 6(a) of Chapter 5 of the Chhattisgarh Bhu-Abhilekh Niyamavali (Part-I). The aforesaid agreement was executed between the parties on 11.05.2014 and the rights and possession claimed by the present Appellant/Respondent No. 5 were required to be considered in the light of the said agreement and the applicable provisions of law. However, the Hon’ble Single Bench, without properly appreciating the material facts, the effect of the agreement dated 11.05.2014 and the applicable legal provisions, proceeded to pass the impugned order in favour of the original petitioners, who are now Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 in the present appeal. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking to bring the legal representatives of Petitioner No. 7, namely Shrawan Pandey, on record, stating that he had expired in November, 2025. However, despite the said application and the admitted fact of his death, the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner No. 7 were not brought on record before the writ petition was finally decided by 5 the Hon’ble Single Bench. In view thereof, the present Appellant has impleaded the legal representatives of deceased Petitioner No. 7 as Respondent Nos. 11-A, 11-B and 11-C in the present appeal. 6. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners, who are now Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 in the present appeal. Hence, this writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Bench has erred both in law and on facts while passing the impugned order dated 25.04.2026. The learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate that the proceedings initiated before the Tahsildar, Bodri, were confined to the question of recording possession in the revenue records and did not involve any adjudication or declaration of title. It is submitted that the appellant had submitted an application before the Tahsildar, Bodri, on the basis of the agreement dated 11.05.2014, pursuant to which possession of the subject land had already been handed over to the appellant. The proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar under Rule 6(a) of Chapter 5 of the Chhattisgarh Bhu-Abhilekh Niyamavali (Part-I). The appellant's prayer was limited to recording his possession in Column No. 12 of the Khasra Panchshala concerning Khasra Nos. 377, 378 and 379, admeasuring 7.49 acres, situated at village Bodri, Tahsil Bodri, District Bilaspur 6 (C.G.). 8. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Bench has wrongly treated the unregistered nature of the agreement dated 11.05.2014 as an impediment to recording possession. The appellant is not claiming ownership or seeking creation of title on the basis of the said agreement. The appellant is only seeking recording of possession in the revenue records. Rule 6(a) of Chapter 5 empowers the competent revenue authority to record possession, and the said provision does not contemplate registration of an agreement as a precondition for recording possession. It is further submitted that the learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the distinction between recording of possession and recording or determination of title. While an unregistered agreement may not confer title or enable the revenue authority to adjudicate upon disputed ownership, the same cannot, by itself, prevent the competent revenue authority from considering the question of possession in accordance with the applicable revenue rules. 9. Learned counsel also submits that the finding recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, to the effect that the application for recording possession was made in the teeth of First Appeal No. 224/2015, is factually and legally erroneous. The appellant is not a party to the said First Appeal and the subject matter of the said appeal is entirely different. The memo of the 7 First Appeal, placed on record as Annexure P/6, clearly demonstrates that the appellant was not a party thereto. Therefore, the pendency or existence of the said appeal could not have been treated as a legal bar to the appellant's application for recording possession before the Tahsildar. It is further submitted that the agreement dated 11.05.2014 contains the relevant understanding between the parties regarding possession and the requisite revenue-record formalities. The agreement itself contemplated that the necessary correction/amendment in the revenue records was to be completed by the petitioners. The appellant is, therefore, not seeking enforcement of the agreement for the purpose of obtaining title through the revenue proceedings, but is seeking recognition and recording of the possession allegedly delivered to him pursuant to the agreement. Learned counsel submits that the appellant's claim is also not barred merely because the agreement was executed in the year 2014. The appellant relies upon the terms of the agreement and the continuing obligation regarding the revenue records. In any event, the limited proceedings before the Tahsildar concern recording of possession and not adjudication of title. It is further submitted that mutation or revenue entries neither create nor extinguish title. The appellant has not sought any declaration of ownership or creation of title in his favour. The appellant has approached the revenue authority only for recording the possession which, according to him, was handed over by the petitioners. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and 8 the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 10.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 14 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the matter after hearing the parties, which warrants no interference by this Court. 11.Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the nature and scope of the proceedings initiated before the Tahsildar. 12.The principal question for consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellant could seek recording of possession in the revenue records solely on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 11.05.2014, particularly when the said agreement is unregistered and the subject matter is also connected with First Appeal No. 224/2015 pending before this Court. 13.It is an admitted position that the appellant approached the revenue authority seeking recording of his alleged possession on the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sell. The appellant has contended that he is not seeking declaration of title but only recording of possession. However, the source of the alleged possession relied upon by the appellant is the agreement to sell itself. An agreement to sell, particularly when unregistered, does not by itself confer title or create an enforceable right to have 9 possession recorded in the revenue records as a matter of course. 14.The contention of the appellant that the proceedings are confined merely to recording possession and do not involve determination of title cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The revenue authority cannot, on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell, adjudicate upon or recognise a disputed claim of possession where such claim is founded upon the rights asserted under the agreement. The question of possession arising out of such an agreement, particularly when disputed, is a matter which can appropriately be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. 15.This Court also finds no error in the observation of the learned Single Judge regarding First Appeal No. 224/2015. The existence and pendency of the said proceedings, coupled with the nature of the claim raised before the revenue authority, justified the learned Single Judge in examining the propriety of the revenue proceedings with due caution. The revenue authorities cannot, under the guise of making an entry regarding possession, indirectly determine or recognise rights which are required to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. 16.The reliance placed by the appellant upon Rule 6(a) of Chapter 5 of the Chhattisgarh Bhu-Abhilekh Niyamavali does not advance his case. The said provision cannot be construed as conferring jurisdiction upon the revenue authority to adjudicate disputed civil 10 rights or to record possession merely on the strength of an unregistered agreement to sell. Revenue entries are primarily for fiscal and record purposes and cannot be used as a substitute for adjudication of civil rights. 17.The submission that mutation or revenue entries do not create or extinguish title is not in dispute. However, the same principle does not mean that a disputed claim of possession based upon an unregistered agreement to sell must necessarily be recorded by the revenue authority. Where the very basis of the claimed possession is disputed, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil court. 18.The appellant has also failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional or legal error in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar were not sustainable in law. The learned Single Judge has, while disposing of the writ petition, expressly left it open to the parties to avail themselves of such other remedies as may be available to them in law. Thus, no final adjudication of title or civil rights has been made by the learned Single Judge. 19.Insofar as the contention regarding the pending application for bringing the legal representatives of petitioner No. 7 on record is concerned, this Court finds that the appellant has not demonstrated that the alleged procedural irregularity has caused such prejudice as would warrant interference with the otherwise 11 legally sustainable conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. 20.Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.04.2026. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that possession cannot be recorded in the revenue records on the basis of the unregistered agreement to sell and that the parties are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent forum. 21.Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the findings recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 22.Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu