1 CGHC010196072021 2026:CGHC:42330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3442 of 2021 1 - Hemu Yadu S/o Late Mahesh Yadu Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Lig 20, Shailendra Nagar , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Sakha Grih Niram Society Raipur Registration No. Dr/rpr/91/81-82 Office Danganiya, Raipur . Present Address Incharge Officer Shri C.S. Chandravanshi, Office Krishna Sakha Grih Niram Society , Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Ministry Of Revenue , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Dhurander Builders And Developers Through Keshav Dhurander, Aged 69 Years, S/o Late Mahendra Dhurander Resident Of Sundar Nagar , Raipur , Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS system) For Petitioners : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. K. N. Singh, Advocates For State : Mr. Vivek Verma, GA For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Aman Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29.09.2026 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by way of the present petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 02.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Raipur (C.G.) in Revenue Revision No. RN/14/R/A- 6/134/2019, whereby the orders passed by the authorities below have been set aside and the name of respondent No. 2 has been directed to be mutated in the revenue records in respect of the property in question. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 had applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records in respect of Plot No. 44, Khasra No. 161/2, admeasuring 2400 sq. ft., in which the petitioner claims to have been in possession since 1991. The said application was registered as Case No. 1405/A- 6/2013-14, wherein respondent No. 2 raised an objection contending that Plot No. 44 falls under Khasra Nos. 173/1 and 173/3. The learned Tehsildar, vide order dated 12.08.2014, dismissed the objection raised by respondent No. 2. The appeal/revision preferred thereagainst before the Upper Collector, Raipur was also dismissed on 25.05.2016. The subsequent revision preferred before the Commissioner was likewise dismissed, and thereafter the Additional Tehsildar, Raipur, vide order dated 27.05.2017, mutated the name of petitioner No. 1 in 3 respect of Plot No. 44, area 2400 sq. ft., Khasra No. 161/2. Respondent No. 2 thereafter challenged the aforesaid order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was registered as Appeal No. 115/A-6/2016-17 and was dismissed on 16.10.2017. Against the said order, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, registered as Case No. 215/A-6/2017-18, which was partly allowed vide order dated 15.05.2019, directing physical verification and demarcation of Plot No. 44 and its corresponding Khasra number after due verification with the revenue records. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Raipur, which, vide the impugned order dated 02.03.2021, set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and directed mutation of the name of respondent No. 2 in the revenue records, without first determining whether Plot No. 44 falls under Khasra No. 161/2 or Khasra Nos. 173/1 and 173/3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without proper verification of the identity and location of the land in question and contrary to the applicable provisions of law. It is also submitted that the Board of Revenue has failed to take into consideration the fact that the issue relating to the property is pending consideration before this Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records for 4 perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of certiarari appropriate writ do issue quashing the impugn order dated 02-03-2021 passed in RN/14/A-6/134/2019 and in effect upheld and mutate the name of the petitioner in the concern land revenue records in facts and circumstance of the case. 10.3 Cost of the proceedings. 10.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner purchased the land in question from Krishna Sakha Grih Nirman Samiti by registered sale deed dated 31.01.1991 and thereafter sought mutation of his names in respect of Plot No. 44, Khasra No. 161/2, admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 had already purchased Khasra Nos. 173/1, area 0.303 hectare, and 173/3, area 0.385 hectare, by registered sale deeds dated 29.06.2005 and 02.08.2005 respectively, and its name was duly mutated in the revenue records. The said mutation was affirmed by the Board of Revenue as well as by this Court in WPC Nos. 805/2009 and 806/2009 vide order dated 08.08.2009. Learned counsel further submits that from the order dated 5 05.12.2011 passed by the Tahsildar, Raipur, it was found that Plot No. 44, which had been included in the layout of Krishna Sakha Grih Nirman Samiti and sold to the petitioners, in fact falls within the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 173/1 and 173/3 belonging to respondent No. 2. It is submitted that although the Tahsildar subsequently directed mutation of the petitioner’s name vide order dated 27.05.2017, the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 16.10.2017. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Raipur Division, vide order dated 15.05.2019, partly allowed the appeal and directed demarcation of the land after verification of the field map and revenue records. Learned counsel further submits that the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, vide judgment and decree dated 21.06.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2017, has held that Plot No. 44, purchased and occupied by the petitioner, forms part of Khasra No. 173/1 belonging to respondent No. 2. The said judgment and decree has not been set aside and is binding upon the revenue authorities. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid findings, the Board of Revenue, while exercising its quasi-judicial jurisdiction, passed the impugned order directing mutation of the name of respondent No. 2 in respect of Plot No. 44. The impugned order is a reasoned order passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties and in accordance with law. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioners have failed to establish any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its 6 limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, while opposing the submissions advanced by the petitioners, supported the impugned order passed by the learned Board of Revenue. He submitted that the order under challenge was passed after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record and therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the dispute essentially relates to the identity and title of Plot No. 44, admeasuring 2400 sq. ft., and its corresponding Khasra number. The petitioners claim the said land to be part of Khasra No. 161/2, whereas respondent No. 2 claims that Plot No. 44 forms part of Khasra No. 173/1 and 173/3. It is not in dispute that the First Additional District Judge, Raipur, vide judgment and decree dated 21.06.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2017, has recorded a finding with regard to Plot No. 44 being part of Khasra No. 173/1 belonging to respondent No. 2. The said judgment and decree has not been shown to have been set aside by any competent court. The Board of Revenue, while considering the rival claims, has taken note of the aforesaid judgment and has passed the impugned order directing the revenue authorities to record the name of respondent No. 2 in respect of the land in question. This 7 Court further finds that the Board of Revenue has passed a reasoned and speaking order after considering the orders passed by the authorities below as well as the material available on record. Significantly, the Board of Revenue has also made it clear that any mutation proceedings shall remain subject to the final decision of the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the subsisting judgment and decree of the competent Civil Court concerning the identity and ownership of the land in question, this Court finds no perversity, jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference passed by the Board of Revenue. 5. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL