1 CGHC010326042026 2026:CGHC:39754 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1178 of 2026 1 - Sagira Rizwana W/o Khwaja Ghyasuddin Faizal Butt, Aged About 73 Years, R/o House No,3, Happy Home, Mahavir Nagar, Behind Maruti Residence, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Kaleem Baig S/o Karim Baig R/o Islam Mohalla, Near Super Lodge, Saraipali, Tehsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.) 2 - Mushtaq Husain S/o Late Yasin Khan, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Bazarpara, Noorani Chowk, Saraipali, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Matlub Husain S/o Late Yasin Khan, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Bazarpara, Noorani Chowk, Saraipali, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Hamid Khan S/o Late Mohammad Husain, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Bazarpara, Noorani Chowk, Saraipali, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Mahjabeen Khan D/o Late Mohammad Husain, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Bazarpara, Noorani Chowk, Saraipali, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 10-09-2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur in Case No. RN/12/R/A-74/280/2025 whereby the application for grant of stay under Section 52 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has been dismissed and the Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.09.22 10:55:20 +0530 2 case was fixed for final hearing after calling records of the subordinate revenue courts. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the daughter and legal heir of Late Yasin Khan, who had five children, namely, Mehboob Hussain, Mushtaq Husain, Matlub Husain, Mohammad Husain and the petitioner Sagira Rizwana. According to the petitioner, Yasin Khan owned several parcels of land at Village Saraipali, whereas Late Karim Baig, father of respondent No.1, owned land bearing Khasra No.742/2 admeasuring 0.25 acre in the same village. It is pleaded that Yasin Khan and Karim Baig mutually agreed to exchange their respective properties and, pursuant thereto, executed two registered sale deeds dated 06.06.1959. Under one sale deed, the property of Karim Baig was transferred in the name of minor Mehboob Hussain, represented by his natural guardian Yasin Khan, while under the other, the property of Yasin Khan was transferred in favour of Karim Baig. The petitioner asserts that possession was accordingly exchanged and the mutation entries were also recorded in the revenue records. 3. It is further pleaded that although Mutation No.89 dated 21.05.1961 was passed in respect of the property in favour of Mehboob Hussain, his name was not properly reflected in the revenue records and Khasra No.742 continued to stand in the name of Karim Baig due to an erroneous entry. On discovery of the error during the 1986 Girdawari, Yasin Khan approached the Tehsildar, pursuant to which Mehboob Hussain's name was recorded. According to the petitioner, after the death of Karim Baig in 1995, respondent No.1, in collusion with the Patwari, illegally got his name recorded in Khasra No.742 through Mutation No.74 dated 12.12.1995. The said mutation was subsequently set aside by the Tehsildar on 02.07.1996, relying upon the Patwari's report admitting the mistake. The petitioner further relies upon the civil litigation in which Mehboob Hussain obtained a decree of permanent injunction against respondent No.1, which was affirmed in first appeal, though the second appeal 3 was subsequently allowed ex parte by this Court on 12.07.2019. It is specifically pleaded that the said judgment did not record any adverse finding against the petitioner's title or declare the registered sale deed dated 06.06.1959 void or non-est. 4. The petitioner thereafter pleads that, on the basis of the order dated 12.07.2019, respondent No.1 obtained an order dated 27.09.2021 from the Tehsildar for restoration of his name in the revenue record. The appeals and review preferred by respondents No.2 to 5 before the SDO and Commissioner were dismissed, and the matter was thereafter taken in revision before the Revenue Board. The petitioner asserts that Mehboob Hussain died issueless and that the property acquired by him formed part of the joint family property, in which the petitioner, being the daughter of Yasin Khan, claims a share and interest. She states that after her marriage in 1977, she shifted to Raipur and, therefore, remained unaware of the subsequent proceedings concerning the property. According to her, she came to know of the dispute only upon reading a public notice published on 10.08.2025, whereafter she obtained the relevant documents and filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 seeking her impleadment before the Revenue Board. The said application was rejected on 07.07.2026 on the ground that she had not sought impleadment before the subordinate revenue authorities and had approached the proceedings after considerable delay. The petitioner challenges the said order, contending that she is a necessary and interested party having a lawful share and interest in the subject property and that her rights ought to be protected in the pending proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the Revenue Board rejecting the petitioner’s application for impleadment suffers from illegality and material irregularity, inasmuch as the petitioner has asserted a specific and substantive right, share and interest in 4 the subject property, which, according to her, is family property in which she is a co-owner/co-sharer. It is submitted that when the petitioner claims an independent interest in the very property which is the subject matter of the pending revenue proceedings, her presence is necessary for proper, complete and effective adjudication of the dispute, and her impleadment ought not to have been declined on a technical consideration. 6. He would further submit that the Revenue Board erred in treating the petitioner’s non-impleadment in the earlier proceedings as a ground for rejecting her application. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings, as after her marriage in the year 1977 she had been residing at Raipur and had been living away from Saraipali for a considerable period. She came to know about the dispute only upon the public notice dated 10.08.2025 and, immediately thereafter, approached the competent authority seeking her impleadment for protection of her lawful interest. It would therefore be submitted that there was neither deliberate delay nor acquiescence on the part of the petitioner and, in the absence of any material establishing her prior knowledge, her substantive rights could not have been defeated merely on the ground that she was not a party to the earlier proceedings. 7. It would also be submitted that the question whether the petitioner actually possesses the claimed right or share in the property is a matter to be adjudicated on merits and cannot constitute a ground for refusing impleadment at the threshold. Once the petitioner has disclosed a direct and substantial interest in the subject property and the ultimate decision in the pending proceedings is capable of affecting such interest, principles of natural justice require that she be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Otherwise, the proceedings may culminate in an adjudication affecting the rights of a person who was not heard, thereby giving rise to further litigation and multiplicity of proceedings. 5 8. He would lastly submit that impleadment is intended to facilitate complete and effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Revenue Board ought to have adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach rather than rejecting the application on a technical ground. The petitioner does not seek to reopen the proceedings for any extraneous purpose, but only seeks an opportunity to place her independent claim before the authority competent to adjudicate the dispute. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the petitioner be directed to be impleaded as a party respondent in the pending revenue proceedings, with liberty to all parties to raise their respective claims and objections on merits. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 10. The question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, merely on the basis of her assertion that she is one of the legal heirs of late Yasin Khan and has an alleged share in the property acquired by late Mehboob Hussain, is entitled to be impleaded in the pending revenue proceedings. In the considered view of this Court, the nature and scope of the dispute pending before the Revenue Board assumes significance. The dispute essentially concerns the right and title claimed by the parties belonging to two different families, namely, the family of late Yasin Khan and the family of late Karim Baig, in respect of land bearing Khasra No.742, which, according to the petitioner herself, was the subject matter of the alleged exchange between Yasin Khan and Karim Baig pursuant to the registered sale deeds dated 06.06.1959. The proceedings before the Revenue Board, therefore, do not concern adjudication of the inter se shares or succession among the heirs of late Yasin Khan. 11. The petitioner seeks her impleadment on the ground that late Mehboob Hussain, in whose favour the property of late Karim Baig was allegedly transferred, was one of the sons of late Yasin Khan and, upon his death, the petitioner claims a share in the property as an heir of Yasin Khan. However, 6 such assertion does not, by itself, make the petitioner a necessary or proper party to the dispute presently pending before the Revenue Board. The question before the Revenue Board is essentially whether the claim of respondent No.1 to the land bearing Khasra No.742 is sustainable in view of the earlier transactions, revenue entries, orders passed by the competent authorities and the subsequent civil proceedings. The adjudication of that controversy would not require determination of the respective shares of the petitioner and the other heirs of late Yasin Khan in the property allegedly acquired by Mehboob Hussain. Any such inter se dispute, if it survives, would constitute a separate cause of action and cannot enlarge the scope of the pending revenue proceedings. 12. It is also significant that the petitioner is not left without representation or protection of the interest which she claims in the subject property. Respondents No.2 to 5, who are already before the Revenue Board and had themselves preferred the proceedings, are contesting the claim relating to Khasra No.742. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the said respondents are acting adversely to the alleged interest of the petitioner or that they have conceded the claim of respondent No.1 so as to prejudice the petitioner. On the contrary, the very pendency of the proceedings initiated by respondents No.2 to 5 shows that the claim relating to the disputed land is already being effectively contested. Merely because the petitioner may have an independent or derivative claim in the property within the family of late Yasin Khan, her presence is not indispensable for deciding the controversy between the two competing families. 13. The plea of the petitioner that she was unaware of the proceedings and acquired knowledge only upon publication of the notice dated 10.08.2025 may explain the circumstances in which she approached the Revenue Board, but such plea, by itself, cannot confer a right of impleadment where the petitioner fails to establish that her presence is necessary for adjudication of the 7 controversy pending before the Board. The principle against multiplicity of proceedings cannot be invoked to convert the pending revenue proceedings into an adjudication of all possible claims relating to succession, inheritance or partition within the family of late Yasin Khan. The Revenue Board was, therefore, justified in examining whether the petitioner had a direct and necessary role in the controversy before it, rather than merely proceeding on the basis of her assertion of an alleged share in the family property. 14. The distinction between a necessary party and a proper party is well settled. In Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a necessary party is a person without whom no effective order can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon the questions involved in the proceedings. Similarly, in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a person can be regarded as a necessary party where there is a right to some relief against such person in respect of the controversy involved and no effective adjudication can be made in his or her absence. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not fall within the category of either a necessary or a proper party to the proceedings pending before the Revenue Board. The controversy before the Board relates to the competing claims of the families of late Yasin Khan and late Karim Baig in respect of Khasra No.742 and not to the inter se determination of the shares or succession of the heirs of late Yasin Khan. The petitioner’s claim of an alleged share in the property of her father may give her an independent cause of action, if otherwise available in law, but her presence is not necessary for deciding the controversy pending before the Revenue Board, particularly when respondents No.2 to 5 are already before the Board and are contesting the claim in respect of the very same property. 8 15. The Board of Revenue rejected the application for impleadment on the ground that the proposed party, Sagira Rizwana, is the daughter of late Yasin Khan, while applicants No.1 and 2 are also his sons, and that the petitioner claims an interest in the property of her father and, on that basis, seeks to be impleaded as an interested party for an opportunity of hearing. The Board further observed that Sagira Rizwana was not impleaded in any of the three proceedings before the subordinate revenue authorities, nor had she sought her impleadment at any earlier stage, and therefore, her attempt to seek impleadment before the Board after a lapse of approximately seven years could not be regarded as bona fide. The Board accordingly held that she was at liberty to seek appropriate relief before the competent Civil Court and, consequently, rejected her application for impleadment. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s alleged right, if any, in the property inherited by the heirs of late Yasin Khan is not being adjudicated upon in the present proceedings, and the dismissal of her application for impleadment would not, by itself, operate as an adjudication against such independent right. It is, therefore, clarified that the observations made herein are confined only to the question of impleadment in the pending revenue proceedings and shall not prejudice the petitioner’s right, if otherwise available in law, to agitate her independent claim in appropriate proceedings. 17. The writ petition is accordingly liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil