SUMITRA BAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010191902023 2026:CGHC:45512
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2868 of 2023
1 - Sumitra Bai Wife Of Durga Ram Nai, D/o. Khelu Ram Nai, Aged
About 64 Years R/o Village Kuruva, Post Silhati, Tahsil Sahaspur
Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
2 - The Commissioner, Durg, Division, Durg, District Durg (C.G.).
3 - The Sub Divisionnal Officer (Revenue), Gandai- Chhuikhadan,
District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.).
4 - The Tahsildar, Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai
5 - Bundu Bai D/o. Khelu Ram Nai, Aged About 70 Years R/o. Village
Dhaurabhata, ( Parpodi), Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.).
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate

2
For State :- Mrs. Akansha Verma Dhabedkar, P.L.
For Respondent No. 5 :- Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
28.10.2026
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Durg
Division, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Appeal Case No.
440A-6/2022-23, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
under Section 44(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,
1959, has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 27.02.2023
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gandai-
Chhuikhadan.
2. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the
entire record inrelates to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to
issued a writ / or writs/order/ or orders / to quashed the
order dated 25.05.2023 (Annexure P/1), passed by the
Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, in appeal case no.
440A-6/2022-23, in the interest of justice, and further
be pleased to affirmed the order passed by the
Tahsildar, dated 31.05.2022, (Annexure P/3), in the
interest of justice.

3
10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit
and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner,
in the interest of justice.
10.4 An affidavit in support of this petition is filed
herewith.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Durg
Division, Durg, is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. It is
contended that the private respondent has already instituted Civil
Suit No. 23A/2022 before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Chhuikhadan,
seeking declaration, permanent injunction, partition and
possession, as well as a declaration that the registered sale deed
dated 04.09.2014 and the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the
Tahsildar are null and void and not binding upon her. The said civil
suit is still pending consideration before the competent Civil Court.
Learned counsel further submits that the Tahsildar, after due
compliance with the applicable legal provisions, had passed an
order of mutation in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a
registered Will deed. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), without properly appreciating the facts and the
applicable law, set aside the well-reasoned order passed by the
Tahsildar, and the said order was erroneously affirmed by the
Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg. It is also contended that,
during the pendency of the appeal before the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), the petitioner had filed an application seeking a

4
stay of the proceedings. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer
proceeded to decide the appeal preferred by private respondent
No. 5, thereby acting arbitrarily and contrary to law. Learned
counsel lastly submits that, in view of the pendency of the civil suit
concerning the same subject matter, the impugned orders passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Commissioner,
Durg Division, Durg, are unsustainable in law and liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and
the impugned order dated 25.05.2023, along with the order dated
27.02.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Gandai-Chhuikhadan, be quashed.
4. Learned State counsel supports the impugned orders passed by
the revenue authorities and submits that no interference by this
Court is warranted.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 opposes the writ
petition and submits that the impugned orders have been passed
in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the rights of the
parties are already in issue before the competent Civil Court and,
therefore, no interference is called for in the present writ petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. The principal question for consideration is whether mutation could
have been ordered in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the

5
Will when the validity and legal effect of the Will are in dispute
before the competent Civil Court. In this regard, the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 is
relevant. The revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate
upon disputed questions relating to the genuineness and validity
of a Will, as such questions fall within the jurisdiction of the
competent Civil Court. Relevant paras of the said judgment are
quoted hereinbelow:-
“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

6
sought to be made on the basis of the will, the
party 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; Faqruddin v.

7
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.”
8. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tarachandra v.
Bhawarlal and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2902 has held as
under:-
“19. But what is important is that mutation
does not confer any right, title or interest on a
person. Mutation in the revenue records is
only for fiscal purposes, therefore, where
there is no serious dispute raised by any

8
natural legal heir, if any, of the tenure holder,
in absence of any legal bar, mutation based
on a will should not be denied as it would
defeat the interest of Revenue.
20. In Jitendra Singh (supra) this Court
observed that if there is any dispute with
respect to the title, more particularly when the
mutation entry is sought on the basis of the
will, the party who is claiming title/right will
have to approach the appropriate Civil
Court/Revenue Court and get his rights
adjudicated. However, in our view, this cannot
be taken as a law proscribing mutation based
on a will particularly where the legal heirs of
the tenure holder raise no dispute.
21. In the present case, none of the legal
heirs of the deceased tenure holder raised a
dispute regarding the will. The will is a
registered document. The objection, if any, is
from the first respondent who claims himself
to be in occupation of a particular piece of
land held by the deceased tenure holder.
Moreover, the claim of first respondent is
based on an agreement for sale, and
possession thereunder. Admittedly, the same
is not a registered document and there
appears to be no decree of specific
performance in his favour thus far. In such
circumstances, if the Tehsildar and other
revenue authorities had allowed mutation on
the basis of the will by making it subject to
regular civil proceedings, we do not find any

9
such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the
mutation order as may warrant interference in
exercise of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
22. In our view, therefore, the High Court
erred by interfering with the mutation order(s)
passed in favour of the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment and order of the High
Court is set aside. The order of the revenue
authorities stands restored. The mutation
entry, however, shall be subject to any
adjudication by a competent Civil
Court/Revenue Court.”
9. In the present case, respondent No. 5 has already instituted Civil
Suit No. 23A/2022, wherein, inter alia, the validity and legal effect
of the registered sale deed dated 04.09.2014 and the Tahsildar’s
order dated 31.05.2022 have been questioned. The said civil suit
is pending consideration. In these circumstances, the Tahsildar
ought not to have proceeded to effect mutation in favour of the
petitioner solely on the basis of the disputed Will, without awaiting
adjudication by the competent Civil Court. The subsequent orders
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and affirmed by
the Commissioner, therefore, do not warrant interference by this
Court, insofar as they set aside the mutation order founded upon
the disputed Will.

10
10.Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
impugned order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner,
Durg Division, Durg, affirming the order dated 27.02.2023 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gandai-Chhuikhadan.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, made
clear that the observations made herein are confined to the
mutation proceedings and shall not prejudice the rights and
contentions of the parties in the pending civil suit, which shall be
decided independently, in accordance with law.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha