1 CGHC010338042026 2026:CGHC:41080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1225 of 2026 Pitamber Sinha Son Of Ram Singh Sinha, Aged About 58 Years Resident Of House No. 56, Uday Nagar, Kanker, Tahsil-Kanker, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Bhupesh Sinha Son Of Late Sadhuram, Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Kavita Daughter Of Late Sadhuram, Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Peelabai, Wd/o Late Ramji, Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil- Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Shyama Bai, Daughter Of Late Ramji, Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - Narendra Kumar Son Of Late Ramji, Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 6 - Devendra Kumar Son Of Late Ramji, Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 7 - Harish Kumar Son Of Late Ramji, Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil- Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 8 - Kejabai Daughter Of Late Kunwar Singh, Resident Of Village-Charama, VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.23 18:51:26 +0530 2 Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 9 - Gaya Bai Daughter Of Late Kunwar Singh, Resident Of Village- Charama, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 10 - Ahimat Daughter Of Late Kunwar Singh, Through Power Of Attorney- Bhupesh Sinha Son Of Late Sadhuram. Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 11 - Gouri Bai Wife Of Ramesh @ Rame Sinha, Resident Of Village- Tanhkapar, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 12 - Santosh Kumar Ojha Son Of Ashok Kumar, Caste-Dhimar, Resident Of Village-Charama, Tahsil-Charama, District-North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 21/09/2026 Heard. 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 11.03.2024 and 11.07.2024 (Annexure P/1), passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur, in Revision Case No. RN/09/R/A-27/326/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been dismissed and subsequently, the revision filed by the present respondents has been allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar division, 3 dated 18.08.2023, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Charama, dated 30.09.2022 and Tahsildar, Charama dated 12.04.2021 have been set aside. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the present writ petition: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of court below, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders dated 11.03.2024 & 11.07.2024 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the orders dated 04.06.2025 & 03.08.2026 (Annexure P/9 & P/10) with all consequential mutation of subject lands in the name of respondents no. 1 to 12 and further be pleased to direct for mutation of subject lands purchased by the petitioners through registered sale deed dated 28.08.2023 in the name of petitioner in revenue records. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, he is the bona fide purchaser of the subject land from the present respondent No.11 Gouri Bai through registered sale-deed dated 28.08.2023. Gouri Bai was recorded owner of total 3.83 hectares of land of different khasra numbers situated at village Charama along with her brothers Kanhaiya and Kunwar Singh. Gouri Bai is having ½ share of the 4 subject property for which she made an application for partition of the subject land before the Tahsildar Charama under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short “Land Revenue Code”). Initially on 09.10.2020, the Tahsildar passed a preliminary order and called Fard-Bantwara from the concerned Patwari, which was challenged by the non-applicants before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Charama, which was dismissed. Thereafter the concerned Patwari submitted a Fard-Bantwara list, in which it was reported that the subject land was recorded in the joint name of Kunwar Singh and Brijlal, who were the real brothers and after death of them, the names of their LRs have been mutated. The Tahsildar Charama passed the order of partition on 12.04.2021 after considering the entire aspects of the matter. The said order dated 12.04.2021 was challenged by the present respondents before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), which was dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2022 and subsequently, their second appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Bastar division vide order dated 18.08.2023. After dismissal of the second appeal, on 18.08.2023, the petitioner purchased the subject land through registered sale-deed dated 28.08.2023. Thereafter the present respondents filed their revision before the Board of Revenue on 08.09.2023 challenging the order dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Commissioner, Bastar division. In the revision, the present petitioner was not made as a party respondent despite acquiring title over the subject property from Gouri Bai. When the petitioner came to know about the proceedings before the Board of Revenue, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading himself to be a party respondent in 5 the revision, but the application was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2024 holding that the petitioner is not the bona fide purchaser, but during pendency of the proceedings, he purchased the subject property and he is bound by the ultimate outcome of the proceedings as the seller Gouri Bai is already a party in the proceeding and properly defending her case. Subsequently, the revision filed by the respondents is allowed vide order dated 11.07.2024 and the orders passed by the Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar were set aside. He would further submit that the Board of Revenue has erred in considering that the mutation in favour of Gouri Bai dated 21.03.1994 is illegal, which has been held in order dated 11.07.2024 in another case No. RN/9/A-6/325/2023 and therefore, she cannot be held to be the co-owner of the subject property and ultimately the partition order also lost its validity. It is further submitted by him that though there is delay of about two years in filing the present writ petition, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also various revenue proceedings pending before the parties, the petitioner cannot be non-suited only on the ground of delay. 4. He would further submit that in another proceeding, before the Tahsildar, Charama the mutation order dated 21.03.1994 in favour of Gouri Bai was set aside, which was affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 11.07.2024 and thereafter the name of the petitioner was ordered to be mutated only with respect to 0.555 hectare of land by the order dated 30.12.2024 by Tahsildar, Charama. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Charama, which was allowed 6 vide order dated 04.06.2025 and the order of mutation passed by the Tahsildar has been set aside. The said order dated 04.06.2025 was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, North Bastar, Kanker by filing an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 11.03.2024 and 11.07.2024, passed by the Board of Revenue. He would also submit that the petitioner is the title holder of the subject property by virtue of the registered sale-deed executed in his favour and he was the necessary party to the proceeding. Without impleading him as a party non-applicant, the orders have been passed, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and he may be provided an opportunity of hearing after impleading him as a party non-applicant. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Board of Revenue. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner claims his title over the subject property through the registered sale-deed dated 28.08.2023 executed by respondent No. 11 -Gouri Bai. It is also not in dispute that Gouri Bai was already a party non-applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue and had been properly contesting and defending the proceedings arising out of the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), which were subsequently affirmed by the Commissioner. Thus, the interest claimed by the petitioner in the subject property was substantially 7 derived from Gouri Bai, who was already before the revisional authority and was contesting the matter on the issue of her right and share in the subject property. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the petitioner subsequently purchased the property from Gouri Bai did not, by itself, create an independent right to reopen the entire proceedings, particularly when the petitioner stepped into the shoes of his vendor and his rights could not be placed on a better footing than those of his predecessor-in-interest. 7. Another important aspect of the matter is the conduct of the petitioner and the delay in approaching this Court. The petitioner admittedly acquired the subject property on 28.08.2023, whereas the order rejecting his application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was passed by the Board of Revenue on 11.03.2024 and the revision was finally decided on 11.07.2024. The subsequent proceedings clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was conscious of and was actively contesting the revenue proceedings concerning the very same property and the title claimed through Gouri Bai. In fact, in the subsequent proceedings, the petitioner challenged the orders whereby the mutation in favour of Gouri Bai was set aside and thereafter also challenged the orders passed against his own claim for mutation. The order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue was thus within the knowledge of the petitioner since 2024. Despite having knowledge of the impugned orders, the petitioner did not approach this Court within a reasonable time and chose to challenge the same only after the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by the Additional Collector went against him. The present petition has, 8 therefore, been filed after an unexplained delay of about two years from the order dated 11.07.2024. The subsequent failure of the petitioner in the connected revenue proceedings cannot furnish a fresh cause of action to challenge the orders which were already within his knowledge. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, disentitles him to invoke the discretionary and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at this belated stage. 8. It is also well settled that a transferee pendente lite takes the property subject to the result of the pending litigation. In the present case, the petitioner purchased the subject property from Gouri Bai on 28.08.2023, while the dispute concerning Gouri Bai's right and share in the subject property was already pending in the revenue proceedings and the challenge to the order of the Tahsildar dated 12.04.2021 was being pursued by the present respondents. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim a better or independent right merely on the strength of the subsequent registered sale-deed. He stepped into the shoes of Gouri Bai and remained bound by the outcome of the proceedings concerning the rights of his vendor. The Board of Revenue, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in declining to implead the petitioner merely because he had subsequently purchased the property from an existing party to the proceedings. The principle of lis pendens operates to prevent a transferee from defeating or frustrating the result of pending litigation by virtue of a subsequent transfer. 9 9. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner purchased the subject property from respondent No.11–Gouri Bai on 28.08.2023, immediately after the order dated 18.08.2023 was passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, and thereafter, on 08.09.2023, the present respondents preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the said order. Thus, the petitioner's purchase was made at a stage when the dispute regarding the rights and share of Gouri Bai in the subject property was already the subject matter of judicial/revenue proceedings and the order dated 18.08.2023 had not attained finality. The subsequent institution of the revision on 08.09.2023 cannot be viewed in isolation from the subsisting dispute and the pending challenge to the rights claimed by the vendor of the petitioner. The petitioner, having derived his alleged title from Gouri Bai during the subsistence of such dispute, would step into the shoes of his vendor and the transaction would remain subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The subsequent purchaser cannot acquire any better right or title than that possessed by his vendor and is bound by the ultimate outcome of the proceedings concerning the subject property. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice also does not merit acceptance. The person from whom the petitioner derived his alleged title, namely, Gouri Bai, was already a party to the proceedings and had an opportunity to contest and defend her rights. The petitioner has not demonstrated that any right independent of and superior to the rights claimed by Gouri Bai was available to him, nor has he shown any prejudice caused to him by the impugned orders which 10 could not be effectively represented by his predecessor-in-interest. Moreover, the petitioner's subsequent conduct in pursuing the connected revenue proceedings, despite having knowledge of the orders dated 11.03.2024 and 11.07.2024, makes it clear that the present challenge has not been brought with due promptitude. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser from Gouri Bai, who was already a party to the proceedings and had properly contested the matter, cannot claim an independent right to reopen the concluded proceedings. His belated challenge to the orders dated 11.03.2024 and 11.07.2024, despite having knowledge thereof since 2024 and after having unsuccessfully pursued the subsequent revenue proceedings, also disentitles him to relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No jurisdictional error, perversity or failure of justice warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is made out. 12. Consequently, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved