1 CGHC010139912023 2026:CGHC:39850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2021 of 2023 1 - Ravindra Kumar Sahu S/o Asarfi Sao Aged About 58 Years R/o Muhalla Manipur, Ambikapur P.S. - Ambikapur District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Kailash Sahu Wd/o Late Surendra Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Muhalla Manipur, Ambikapur P.S. - Ambikapur District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Mukesh Sahu S/o Late Surendra Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Muhalla Manipur, Ambikapur P.S. - Ambikapur District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shanti Devi D/o Navrangi Sao Aged About 60 Years W/o Late Hiralal Sahu, R/o Muhalla Manipur, Ambikapur P.S. - Ambikapur District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chintamani Devi D/o Navrangi Sao, Aged About 63 Years, W/o Late Amrit Sahu, R/o Muhalla Manipur, Ambikapur P.S. - Ambikapur District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/09/2026 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.16 11:34:10 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 15.3.2023 passed in Revenue Revision RN/16/R/A-6/298/2021, by the Chhatttisgarh Revenue Board, Bilaspur. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition : 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records regarding the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quesh the order impugned dated 15.03.2023 and uphold the order of the Commissioner. Further, be pleased to direct respondents do not the disturb the possession of the petitioners. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners submitted an application under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "Code") before the concerned Tahsildar seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records pertaining to the subject land, on the strength of a Will executed by Pawna Devi @ Panwa Devi. The Tahsildar, after hearing both parties, allowed the mutation application vide order dated 26.06.1997 and directed the recording of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the subject land. Being aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO, after hearing both sides, passed an order dated 14.09.2020 3 setting aside the order of the Tahsildar and directing the deletion of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records and substitution thereof with the name of Respondent No. 1. Against the said order of the concerned SDO, the petitioners filed a Second Appeal before the Commissioner, Surguja Division. The Commissioner, vide order dated 29.09.2021, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the SDO and reinstated the order of the Tahsildar in favor of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, Respondent No. 1 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitioners duly submitted their written arguments therein. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue passed the impugned order, partly allowing the revision petition, setting aside the order of the Commissioner and restoring the order of the concerned SDO. The Board further issued a direction to the Tahsildar to initiate fresh mutation proceedings based on the alleged Will. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been recorded as the lawful owners of the land in question since 1996 and have maintained continuous undisturbed physical possession for over 30 years. He submits that the respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioners through unfair means by taking advantage of minor technical procedural lapses committed by the revenue authorities. He further submits that Revenue officers lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality or validity of a registered document, which is a power reserved exclusively for the Civil Court. Therefore, refusing 4 mutation on this ground is legally unsustainable. He also submits that the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue suffers from a glaring internal contradiction as it simultaneously upholds the order passed by the concerned SDO with regard to rejection of the mutation while directing the Tahsildar to initiate fresh mutation proceedings under proper procedure. In view of the above, he submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned Tahsildar to initiate fresh mutation proceedings. The Tahsildar shall consider the registered Will in accordance with the law governing the field, expeditiously, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all interested parties and further strictly follow the procedure prescribed under the law. Ordered accordingly. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits/title of the case and the parties are at liberty to establish their title before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, in case exigency arises. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay