1 CGHC010345242022 2026:CGHC:41180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4618 of 2022 Shri Thakur Ramchandra Swami Jaitu Sao (A Registered Trust) Through its Secretary Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, Address - Purani Basti, Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Revenue And Diaster Management Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Circuit Court At Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisions Officer (Revenue) Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Naib Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Son Sai Sahu S/o Vishram Sahu R/o Village Dharampura, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgrh SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.25 14:53:22 +0530 2 7 - Sonuram Sahu S/o Vishram Sahu R/o Village Dharampura, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgrh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Dr.Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyaya, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 13.9.2022 passed in Case No. R.N./14/R/A-6/190/2022 by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, the Petitioner-Trust has preferred this petition. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1 Hon'ble court may kindly be call records of this case for amicable disposal of this Writ Petition. 10.2 Hon'ble court may kindly be please to allow this writ petition and issue necessary writ, direction or order to quash order dated 13.09.2022 of the Lrd. Board of Revenue, Raipur (Annexure P/1). 10.3 Hon'ble court may kindly be please to allow this writ petition and issue necessary writ, direction or order to Respondents to follow observation of the Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition no. WPC no.1344/2017. 3 10.4 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Honble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the matter pertains to correction of land records, mutation and ownership of a piece of land bearing Khasra No.284/5 P.H.N. 115, Area 5.48 acre at Village Dharmpura, Raipur. The subject land was purportedly sold vide registered sale deed dated 16.7.1953. On 16.7.1953 a sale deed was executed by Sarwarakar Mahant Laxmi Narayan Das of Shri Ram Chandra Swami Gopidas Temple in favor of respondents No. 6 and 7. The Petitioner-Trust contends that this sale is void ab initio as the vendor lacked any title, right or interest in the disputed land. In the year 1980, respondents No. 6 & 7 applied for record correction before Respondent No.5 (Naib Tehsildar, Raipur). The Petitioner-Trust objected and the application was rejected after finding that the disputed land was under the ownership and possession of the Petitioner-Trust. Respondents No. 6 & 7 filed a Writ Petition bearing No.WPC No.1344/2017 (Sonsai Sahu vs. State of C.G.) for mutation without impleading the Petitioner-Trust. On 10.01.2018, this Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to file a fresh mutation application before the concerned Naib Tehsildar. On 19.01.2018, in contravention of this Court's direction, respondents No. 6 & 7 filed an application for record correction (instead of a fresh mutation) without impleading the Petitioner Trust or issuing 4 public newspaper notices. On 22.5.2018, Respondent No. 5 (Naib Tehsildar) passed an order allowing record correction in favor of respondents No. 6 & 7. Written objections and arguments submitted by the Petitioner-Trust were ignored. On 28.1.2021, the petitioner's First Appeal was dismissed by the concerned SDO(R), affirming the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, misinterpreting it as compliant with the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2018. Subsequently, the Petitioner-Trust filed a Second Appeal under Section 44(2) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Commissioner, Raipur. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.5.2022, upholding the orders passed by the subordinate Revenue Courts. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPC No.2864/2022, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2022, granting liberty to file a Revision Petition before the competent revenue authority. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition/Application, which was dismissed by Respondent No. 2 (Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Raipur) vide the impugned order dated 13.9.2022, holding that mutation/record correction could not be barred as the Petitioner-Trust failed to show any legal error. Hence, this Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned revenue orders are wholly perverse as respondents No. 6 and 7 filed an application for record correction on 19.01.2018 in direct violation of the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by this Court in WPC No. 1344/2017, wherein liberty was granted only to file a 5 fresh mutation application. He submits that the proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar (Respondent No. 5) breached the principles of natural justice as the Petitioner-Trust, the recorded owner in continuous possession, was deliberately omitted as a party and mandatory newspaper notices were bypassed. Furthermore, the purported sale deed dated 16.07.1953 executed by Sarwarakar Mahant Laxmi Narayan Das is void under Section 14 of the C.G. Public Trust Act, 1951 for lack of mandatory prior sanction from the Registrar of Public Trusts. Therefore, no valid title ever passed to the private respondents. He further submits that despite these title defects and violations, all the Revenue Courts affirmed the illegal record entries. 5. Per, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned orders have rightly been passed, which do not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 7. Evidently, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is based on concurrent findings of fact, wherein it has been categorically observed that a valid sale deed was executed in favor of respondent No. 6 and 7, who subsequently filed an application for mutation before Respondent No. 5 (Naib Tehsildar, Raipur). On execution of the registered sale deed, the mutation application was duly entertained and allowed by the concerned Naib Tehsildar, which was thereafter affirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), the Commissioner, and ultimately 6 the Board of Revenue. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the Board of Revenue correctly held vide the impugned order that where a registered sale deed exists and a mutation application is filed on its basis, the proper legal course for revenue authorities is to mutate the name of the purchaser in the revenue records. If the Petitioner-Trust disputes the validity of the subject sale deed on the ground that it is contrary to law, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court to challenge the sale deed and seek its cancellation. The aforesaid findings and observations of the Board of Revenue are in accordance with law and warrant no interference by this Court. 9. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay