PLASHIDAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010236372024 2026:CGHC:45285
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
TIWARI
Date:
2026.10.27
18:01:57
+0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3614 of 2024
Plashidas S/o Late Gabrail Aged About 75 Years Cast Uranw R/o
Village Jambahar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District Jashpur (C.G.)
2 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.)
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.)
4 - Commissioner Sarguja Division, Ambikapur (C.G.)
5 - Chhattisgarh Revenue Board Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
6 - Khisthofer S/o Somra, Age 67 Years, Cast Uranw R/o Village
Jambahar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.)
7 - Makshi William S/o Somra, Age 57 Years, Cast Uranw R/o Village
Jambahar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate
For State/Respondents
No.1 to 4
: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents No.6 & 7 : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
27.10.2026
1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the order
dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Board of Revenue,
Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, whereby the order dated 12.10.2021
passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, setting

2
aside the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Farasbahar, District Jashpur, was set aside and
the orders dated 03.09.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue) and 02.07.2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Farasbahar,
were maintained. The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned
order dated 19.06.2024 and a direction to the concerned revenue
authorities to record his name in the revenue records in respect of
the subject land. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
CERTIORARI by quashing the order dated
19.06.2024 passed by learned. Respondent
No.,5 i.e. (Annexure P-1.) and confirm the
order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the
learned court of Commissioner Sarguja
Division (Ambikapur) C.G.
10.2 That Hon'ble court may please to direct
to the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Tahsildar
Tahsil Farsabahar District Jashpur (C.G. to get
the petitioner's name registered on the suit
land.
10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be
awarded in favour of the petitioner. ”
2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the land situated
at Village Jambahar, Patwari Halka No. 10, Revenue Board
Tapkara, Tehsil Farasbahar, District Jashpur, comprising 11

3
Khasra numbers and admeasuring a total area of 2.923 hectares
(hereinafter referred to as the "subject land"), was recorded jointly
in the names of Beronika, widow of Choto, and Khisthofer and
Makshi William, sons of Somra. According to the petitioner, the
subject land is ancestral property and the legal heirs of Aganu,
namely, Choto, Somra and Gabrail, had equal rights therein.
Beronika, the wife of Choto, was recorded in the revenue records
in the year 1984. Upon her death, which occurred without any
children, respondent No. 6, Christopher, approached the revenue
authorities seeking mutation of his name in respect of the subject
land on the basis of an alleged agreement/Iqrarnama executed by
the deceased Veronica. The petitioner, being the son of late
Gabrail and claiming to be one of the legal heirs entitled to
succeed to the share of the deceased, filed an objection on
29.08.2019, contending that the subject land could not be mutated
exclusively in favour of the respondents without determining the
lawful heirs of the deceased and examining their respective rights.
The petitioner further relied upon the genealogy prepared by the
Halka Patwari on 02.10.2019 in support of his claim.
3. The Tehsildar, Farasbahar, however, rejected the petitioner's
objection and directed deletion of the name of the deceased
Veronica from the revenue records while maintaining the names of
the respondents in respect of the subject land. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Farasbahar, which was dismissed by order dated

4
03.09.2020. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Surguja Division,
Ambikapur, by order dated 12.10.2021, set aside the order passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, holding that the order dated
03.09.2020 was not in accordance with law and procedure.
However, the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, by the
impugned order dated 19.06.2024, set aside the order passed by
the Commissioner and restored the orders passed by the
subordinate revenue authorities. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
the petitioner has approached this Court, contending that the
revenue authorities failed to undertake a proper inquiry into the
claim of succession, the nature and validity of the alleged
Iqrarnama, and the respective rights of the parties over the subject
land.
4. Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 19.06.2024
passed by the learned Board of Revenue is contrary to law,
inasmuch as the learned Board of Revenue has erroneously set
aside the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Commissioner,
Surguja Division, without properly appreciating the factual and
legal aspects involved in the matter. He submits that the subject
land is ancestral property and that the rights of the legal heirs of
Aganu ought to have been duly considered before directing
mutation in favour of the private respondents. Learned counsel
further submits that the deceased Beronika died issueless and,
therefore, the revenue authorities were required to conduct a

5
proper inquiry into the question of succession and ascertain the
persons legally entitled to succeed to her share in accordance with
law. However, the petitioner's objection was rejected without
affording him an effective opportunity of hearing and without
properly examining the genealogy submitted by the Halka Patwari
on 02.10.2019. He contends that the impugned orders have been
passed without adequately considering the petitioner's claim as a
legal heir and without recording satisfactory findings regarding the
respective rights of the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent
Nos. 6 and 7 claim rights over the subject land on the basis of an
alleged Iqrarnama/will purportedly executed by the deceased
Veronica, the genuineness and validity of which have been
specifically disputed by the petitioner. According to learned
counsel, the said document is forged and could not have been
relied upon by the revenue authorities without first examining its
authenticity and legal effect. He submits that the revenue
authorities have neither conducted any proper inquiry into the
execution and validity of the alleged will nor determined whether
the document could lawfully confer any right upon respondent
Nos. 6 and 7 in respect of the subject land. It is further contended
that the mere production of an alleged Iqrarnama or will cannot, by
itself, establish title to immovable property, particularly when its
execution and genuineness are seriously disputed. Learned
counsel also submits that the alleged document, stated to have

6
been executed for a consideration of Rs. 5/-, cannot be treated as
a valid instrument of relinquishment of rights in immovable
property in the absence of compliance with the applicable legal
requirements. He, therefore, contends that the revenue authorities
ought not to have directed or maintained mutation in favour of
respondent Nos. 6 and 7 solely on the basis of the disputed
document, without first examining its legal effect and the rival
claims of succession. On these grounds, learned counsel submits
that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is
unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing
for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that the impugned
order passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh,
Bilaspur, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He submits that
the concerned revenue authorities have passed the impugned
orders while exercising their respective quasi-judicial powers
under the provisions of the applicable Acts and Rules, after
considering the material available on record. He further submits
that the petitioner has failed to establish any violation of his legal
or fundamental rights or any procedural illegality in the decision-
making process of the revenue authorities. Therefore, in the
absence of any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned
order, no interference by this Court is warranted.

7
7. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has failed
to make out any cogent ground to demonstrate that the impugned
order passed by the learned Board of Revenue suffers from any
error of law or fact. He contends that the petitioner's grievance
essentially relates to the determination of rights over the subject
land and the mutation proceedings undertaken by the revenue
authorities on the basis of the documents produced before them.
The petitioner has not established any ground warranting exercise
of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned
order passed by the competent quasi-judicial authority.
Accordingly, learned State counsel submits that the writ petition is
devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7, Mr. Harish
Khuntiya, submits that the document/will executed by the
deceased Beronika in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 was duly
considered and examined by the concerned revenue authorities,
and the mutation proceedings were undertaken on the basis of the
said document in accordance with law. He further submits that the
names of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had been recorded in the
revenue records as co-owners during the lifetime of Beronika and
the said mutation order was never challenged by the petitioner.
Therefore, the learned Board of Revenue has rightly set aside the
order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, and restored
the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer

8
(Revenue). Accordingly, the impugned order does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
10. Considering the nature of the dispute involved in the present case,
it is apparent that the controversy primarily relates to the rival
claims of the parties over the subject land, particularly the rights
claimed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of the alleged
will/Iqrarnama said to have been executed by the deceased
Beronika. The petitioner has disputed the genuineness and legal
validity of the said document and has asserted his claim on the
basis of succession. Thus, the dispute involves questions relating
to the genuineness, validity and legal effect of the alleged
will/Iqrarnama and the consequential rights of the parties over the
subject land. Such disputed questions of title and the validity of a
will cannot be conclusively adjudicated by the revenue authorities
in mutation proceedings and fall within the domain of the
competent civil Court. The revenue authorities are primarily
concerned with maintaining revenue records for fiscal purposes
and cannot adjudicate complicated questions of title on the basis
of a disputed testamentary instrument.
11. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 , wherein the

9
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the question of
mutation of revenue records on the basis of a disputed will,
reiterated the settled legal position that mutation entries neither
confer nor extinguish title to the property and that a person
claiming rights on the basis of a will must establish such rights
before the competent civil Court. In paragraphs 6 to 9 of the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with
respect to mutation entry in the revenue
records. The petitioner herein submitted an
application to mutate his name on the basis of
the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by
Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the
petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on
27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that
the application before the Nayab Tehsildar
was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death
of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that
the right on the basis of the will can be
claimed only after the death of the executant
of the will. Even the will itself has been
disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled
proposition of law, mutation entry does not
confer any right, title or interest in favour of
the person and the mutation entry in the
revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.
As per the settled proposition of law, if there is
any dispute with respect to the title and more
particularly when the mutation entry is sought
to be made on the basis of the will, the party

10
who is claiming title/right on the basis of the
will has to approach the appropriate civil
court/court and get his rights crystalised and
only thereafter on the basis of the decision
before the civil court necessary mutation entry
can be made.
7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the
case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By
Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court
had an occasion to consider the effect of
mutation and it is observed and held that
mutation of property in revenue records
neither creates nor extinguishes title to the
property nor has it any presumptive value on
title. Such entries are relevant only for the
purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar
view has been expressed in the series of
decisions thereafter.
8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial
Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is
observed and held by this Court that an entry
in revenue records does not confer title on a
person whose name appears in record-of-
rights. Entries in the revenue records or
jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose', i.e.,
payment of land revenue, and no ownership is
conferred on the basis of such entries. It is
further observed that so far as the title of the
property is concerned, it can only be decided
by a competent civil court. Similar view has
been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma
v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58;

11
Fagruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12;
Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC
368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v.
State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T.
Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC
342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur
Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191;
Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10
SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh,
(2019) 13 SCC 70.
9. In view of the above settled proposition of
law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said
that the High Court has committed any error in
setting aside the order passed by the revenue
authorities directing to mutate the name of the
petitioner herein in the revenue records on the
basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 and
relegating the petitioner to approach the
appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the
basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We
are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the High Court."
12. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh (supra), it
is apparent that the controversy concerning the rights claimed by
respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of the alleged will/Iqrarnama
could not have been conclusively determined in mutation
proceedings, particularly when the petitioner has disputed the
genuineness and legal effect of the said document. The fact that
the names of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had been recorded in the

12
revenue records during the lifetime of Beronika, and that the said
mutation entry was not challenged by the petitioner, cannot, by
itself, conclusively establish their title over the subject land or
determine the legal effect of the alleged will/Iqrarnama. A mutation
entry is intended for fiscal purposes and cannot substitute an
adjudication of title by a competent civil Court. The learned Board
of Revenue, while setting aside the order passed by the
Commissioner, appears to have placed undue emphasis on the
existing revenue entries without adequately considering the
distinction between mutation proceedings and adjudication of
disputed rights over immovable property. In the circumstances, the
proper course would be to leave the parties to establish their
respective rights before the competent civil Court and thereafter
seek consequential changes in the revenue records in accordance
with law.
13. There is one more aspect to be considered, namely, that an
unregistered agreement is not a valid document of relinquishment
or conveyance. As such, mutation on the basis of title cannot be
effected on the strength of the said document, even if the same is
taken into consideration.
14. Considering the matter in its entirety and having regard to the
settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Board of
Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, cannot be sustained in law.

13
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order
dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Board of Revenue is
hereby set aside, and the order dated 12.10.2021 passed by the
Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, is confirmed. The
parties claiming rights on the basis of the alleged will/Iqrarnama
shall be at liberty to approach the competent civil Court for
adjudication of the genuineness, validity and legal effect of the
said document and for declaration of their respective rights over
the subject land, in accordance with law. Upon such adjudication,
the concerned revenue authorities shall undertake consequential
proceedings for mutation in accordance with the decision of the
competent civil Court and the applicable law.
15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the genuineness or validity of the alleged will/Iqrarnama or on the
merits of the rival claims of title over the subject land. All such
questions are left open to be decided by the competent civil Court
in appropriate proceedings, uninfluenced by any observation
made herein.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh