Pramila Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti vs Smt. Sukhbati

1

CGHC010259372015 2026:CGHC:45648
NAFR
Digitally signed by
ALOK SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.28
18:07:03 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 16/09/2026
Order Delivered on: 28/10//2026
WP227 No. 616 of 2015
Pramila Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Through The President Shri Rakesh
Kumar Pandey, Son Of Late R.C. Pandey, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. A- 5,
Anupam Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Sukhbati W/o Heeraman R/o. Jayhind Chowk, Kanpa, Lodhipara,
Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - Karmachari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Through Shri Sevak Ram
Pandey, R/o. Rohinipuram, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Guru Harikishanji Grih Nirman Samiti Raipur, Through Shri Harmindar
Singh Hora, R/o. Sai Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
6 - Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent Nos. 1(a) to
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate and
1 (d)
Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate.
For State/Respondent Nos.
: Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
5, 6, and 7.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
CAV Order
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner
challenging the orders dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P/1), passed by
the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur, in
Revenue Revision Case No. RN/14/R/B-121/154/2009, order dated
08.05.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by Tahsildar, Raipur, and order
dated 24.08.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue) cum Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur. The petitioner prayed
for the following reliefs in the writ petition:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kind enough to quash the
impugned order dated 06-07-2015 (Annexure P-1), dated
08-05-2009 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 24-08-2006
(Annexure P-3).
10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly
be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble
court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The present dispute arises out of an application preferred by the
respondent No. 1 (mother of respondent Nos. 1-A to 1-D), Smt.
Sukhbati (since deceased), wife of Hiraman, before the Sub-Divisional
Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, seeking correction of the
revenue records in respect of the land situated at Village
Shankarnagar, Patwari Halka No. 110, Tahsil and District Raipur. The
applicant claimed ownership and possession of the land bearing

3
Khasra Nos. 1035/2 and 1289/2, admeasuring 0.162 hectares, which,
according to her, stood recorded in her name in the revenue records
until the year 1992-93. She averred that, during the preparation of the
revenue records for the year 1993-94, a portion of the aforesaid land,
admeasuring 0.081 hectares and assigned Khasra Nos. 1035/8 and
1289/8, was erroneously recorded in the name of the respondent No.
2, Karmachari Griha Nirman Samiti, under Mutation Entry No. 639,
pursuant to the order dated 15.04.1994. The aforesaid land had never
been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, nor had she received
any compensation in respect thereof. She, therefore, sought
cancellation of the entry recording the name of the respondent No. 2
and restoration of her name in the revenue records.
3. The application was registered as Case No. 5872/B-121/2001-02. By
order dated 24.08.2006, the SDO (Revenue), Raipur, observed that,
under Land Acquisition Case No. 199/A-82/1982-83, an area
measuring 35.12 acres at Village Shankarnagar had been acquired for
Karmachari Griha Nirman Samiti and the award had been passed on
13.11.1992. However, upon examination of the relevant records and
the report of the Patwari, it was found that the disputed land bearing
Khasra Nos. 1035/2 and 1289/2, including the subsequently carved-out
Khasra Nos. 1035/8 and 1289/8, admeasuring 0.081 hectare, did not
find mention in the list of lands acquired for the respondent No. 2. The
records further indicated that the name of Sukhbati had been recorded
over the original Khasra numbers until 1992-93, whereas the name of
the respondent No. 2 was subsequently entered pursuant to Mutation
Entry No. 639 dated 15.04.1994. The SDO (Revenue), Raipur also
noted that the revenue records did not disclose the basis on which the

4
disputed portion had been mutated in favour of the respondent No. 2.
Accordingly, permission for review under Section 51 of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was granted, with a direction
to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Smt. Sukhbati preferred an application
seeking review of the mutation order dated 15.04.1994 passed in
Mutation Entry No. 639. She reiterated that the disputed land formed
part of her original holding and that the respondent No. 2 had acquired
no right or title over the same, as the land had neither been acquired
through land acquisition proceedings nor transferred by her in its
favour. She further contended that the mutation of the disputed land in
favour of the respondent No. 2 was contrary to the documentary
evidence available on record and was, therefore, illegal and liable to be
set aside. She further alleged that, despite having no lawful title over
the disputed land, the respondent No. 2 transferred the land bearing
Khasra Nos. 1035/8 and 1289/8, admeasuring 0.081 hectares, to
respondent No. 3, Shri Guru Harikishan Ji Griha Nirman Sahakari
Samiti, Raipur, on 03.09.1998. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 allegedly
transferred the same land to the petitioner, Pramila Griha Nirman
Sahakari Samiti, through its President, Rakesh Kumar Pandey, on
27.05.2000. According to Smt. Sukhbati, neither of the aforesaid
transfers could confer any right or title upon the subsequent
transferees, as the transferors themselves had no lawful title over the
disputed land. She, accordingly, sought cancellation of the entries
recording the names of the respondents in the revenue records and
prayed that her name be restored in respect of the disputed land
measuring 0.081 hectares.

5
5. The Tahsildar, Raipur, vide its order dated 08.05.2009, declared the
transactions in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 null and void and
directed for restoration of her name in the revenue records, with
respect to land Kh. No. 1035/8 and 1289/8, area 0.081 Hectares. The
said order dated 08.05.2009 was challenged by the petitioner by filing
a revision under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code before the
Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur,
which was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2015. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land bearing
Khasra Nos. 1035/2 and 1289/2, admeasuring 0.081 hectare, was
acquired by the State Government for the benefit of respondent No. 2,
Karmachari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, and compensation of Rs.
26,520/- was awarded to respondent No. 1 in respect of the acquired
land. It is submitted that, thereafter, the land was transferred by
respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3, Guru Harikishan Grih Nirman
Sahkari Samiti, and the petitioner subsequently acquired the land
through a registered sale deed. Pursuant to the successive transfers,
the names of the concerned societies and, ultimately, the petitioner
were recorded in the revenue records. He would further submit that
respondent No. 1, after a considerable lapse of time, approached the
Land Acquisition Officer on 28.06.2000 seeking relief in respect of the
subject land. However, by order dated 14.11.2000, the application was
returned with the observation that the matter could not be proceeded
with before the said authority and that respondent No. 1 could
approach the competent court. Despite this, respondent No. 1
subsequently approached the revenue authorities seeking deletion of
the name of respondent No. 2 and mutation of her own name in the

6
revenue records. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2, in its
reply dated 09.03.2004, had specifically disclosed that the land had
already been transferred to respondent No. 3 and thereafter to the
petitioner.
7. Learned counsel would next submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer, vide
order dated 24.08.2006, permitted review under Section 51 of the Land
Revenue Code and directed the Tahsildar, Raipur, to decide the matter
in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, vide order dated
08.05.2009, directed mutation of the name of respondent No. 1 in
respect of the renumbered Khasra Nos. 1035/8 and 1289/8. It is
argued that the said orders were passed without impleading or
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, despite the fact
that the petitioner had acquired rights in the subject land through a
registered instrument and its name had already been recorded in the
revenue records. Thus, the impugned proceedings are stated to be
vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice.
8. It is also submitted that the Board of Revenue, while deciding the
revision preferred by the petitioner, failed to properly consider the
material available on record, particularly the compensation list
indicating payment of Rs. 26,520/- to respondent No. 1 in respect of
the acquired land. It is pointed out that the petitioner had moved an
application under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code for
summoning the original land acquisition records, as the relevant
compensation list was not available in the record of Land Acquisition
Case No. 199-A/82 of the year 1988-89. Although the Board of
Revenue, on 25.05.2015, directed that the original records be called
for, the matter was ultimately decided without the relevant original

7
record having been duly examined, thereby resulting in non-
consideration of material evidence and the grounds raised in the
petitioner's written submissions dated 01.10.2013.
9. It is lastly argued that the revenue authorities could not have
adjudicated upon the legality or validity of the registered conveyance
under which the petitioner acquired the subject land, as such questions
fall within the domain of the competent civil court. The mutation
proceedings could not have been used to defeat the petitioner's
claimed rights arising from the registered sale deed without
adjudicating the competing claims in appropriate civil proceedings. It is,
therefore, submitted that the Board of Revenue, while passing the
impugned order dated 06.07.2015, failed to appreciate the jurisdictional
infirmities in the orders passed by the subordinate revenue authorities
and the material irregularities in the proceedings. Accordingly, learned
counsel prays that the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 passed by
the Board of Revenue, as well as the order dated 08.05.2009 passed
by the Tahsildar, Raipur, be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the legal
representatives of original respondent No. 1, would submit that the
deceased respondent No. 1, Sukhbati, was the recorded owner of the
land bearing Khasra Nos. 1035/2 and 1289/2, admeasuring 0.172
hectares, and that, during the land acquisition proceedings in Land
Acquisition Case No. 199/A-82/1988-89, an area of 0.081 hectares
was inadvertently recorded in the name of Karmachari Grih Nirman
Sahkari Samiti. Upon coming to know of the erroneous entry, the
deceased respondent No. 1, Sukhbati, approached the Tahsildar for
review of the order dated 15.04.1994. The Sub-Divisional Officer, vide

8
order dated 24.08.2006, granted permission for review under Section
51 of the Land Revenue Code, and thereafter, the Tahsildar, vide order
dated 08.05.2009, allowed the review application and directed that the
land be recorded in the name of the deceased respondent No. 1,
Sukhbati. It is submitted that the Board of Revenue has considered the
entire facts and revenue records of the case, and by the impugned
order dated 06.07.2015, rightly dismissed the revision preferred by the
petitioner.
11. He would also submit that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory
remedy of appeal against the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the
Tahsildar under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code before the Sub-
Divisional Officer. Instead of availing such remedy, the petitioner
approached the Board of Revenue by way of revision, which, according
to the learned counsel, was not maintainable in the circumstances of
the case. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be
permitted to bypass the remedy prescribed under the statute and
invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that, even before the
institution of the present writ petition on 28.07.2015, the order dated
08.05.2009 passed by the Tahsildar had already been implemented
and the revenue records had been corrected in favour of the deceased
respondent No. 1, Sukhbati. In support of this submission, reliance is
placed upon the subsequent order dated 17.07.2015 passed by the
Tahsildar, the relevant Form B-1, Khasra entries, map and Rin Pustika.
It is submitted that the petitioner was aware of the implementation of
the order and the consequential correction of the revenue records but

9
failed to disclose these material facts. It is also submitted that the
deceased respondent No. 1, during her lifetime, executed a registered
Will dated 27.07.2015 in favour of Dr. Subha Dubey, bequeathing her
rights in the property in question. Upon the death of Sukhbati on
06.08.2015, Dr. Subha Dubey, along with the other legal heirs, namely,
Heeraman Janghel, Surendra Kumar Janghel and Kunti Bai, claims the
right to represent the estate of the deceased respondent No. 1. It is,
therefore, prayed that all four persons be brought on record as legal
representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 so that the matter
may be effectively adjudicated in their presence.
13. Learned State counsel would submit that the land bearing Khasra Nos.
1035/2 and 1289/2, admeasuring 0.081 hectares, was acquired by the
State Government for the benefit of respondent No. 2, Karmachari Grih
Nirman Sahkari Samiti. It is submitted that, thereafter, disputes arose
between the private parties regarding the recording of names in the
revenue records in respect of the acquired land. Respondent No. 1
approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of her name,
pursuant to which the Tahsildar, Raipur, vide order dated 08.05.2009,
directed mutation of her name in respect of the renumbered Khasra
Nos. 1035/8 and 1289/8. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said
order, preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which came to
dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2015. Learned State counsel would
submit that the aforesaid facts relate to proceedings between the
private parties and the orders passed by the competent revenue
authorities, and the answering State respondents, being formal parties,
have no independent submissions to make regarding rival claims over
the subject land. He would further submit that, during the pendency of

10
the revision before the Board of Revenue, the petitioners had sought
summoning of the original land acquisition records by moving an
application under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code, contending
that the compensation list was not available in Land Acquisition Case
No. 199-A/82/1988-89. The Board of Revenue directed that the original
records be called for on 25.05.2015 and subsequently decided the
revision on 06.07.2015. It is submitted that the legality and propriety of
the impugned orders, including the question whether the revenue
authorities duly considered the relevant records and the rival claims of
the parties, are matters for consideration by this Court. Since no
specific relief has been claimed against the State, learned State
counsel refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the
dispute or the petitioners' entitlement to the reliefs sought in the
present petition.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and gone
through the orders passed by the revenue authorities and perused the
documents annexed with the petition.
15. The question that arises for consideration in the present petition is
whether the revenue authorities were justified in reviewing the mutation
order dated 15.04.1994 and directing restoration of the name of the
original respondent No. 1, Smt. Sukhbati, in respect of the disputed
land admeasuring 0.081 hectare, particularly when the petitioner
claims to have acquired the land through registered conveyances and
submits that the disputed land formed part of the acquisition
proceedings undertaken for the benefit of respondent No. 2. The
controversy also requires examination of whether the Tahsildar could
have declared the subsequent transactions null and void in the course

11
of mutation proceedings and whether the Board of Revenue
adequately considered the petitioner's objection regarding the non-
production of the original land acquisition records.
16. From the material available on record, it appears that the original
respondent No. 1, Sukhbati, claimed that the land bearing Khasra Nos.
1035/2 and 1289/2 was recorded in her name until the revenue year
1992-93 and that, subsequently, an area of 0.081 hectare was
recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 pursuant to Mutation Entry
No. 639 and the order dated 15.04.1994. On the other hand, the
petitioner claimed that the land had been acquired by the State
Government for respondent No. 2 and that, following subsequent
transfers in favour of respondent No. 3 and ultimately the petitioner, its
name was duly recorded in the revenue records. The order dated
24.08.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer indicates that
permission for review under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code
was granted after noticing that the disputed land did not appear in the
list of lands acquired for respondent No. 2 and that the revenue
records did not disclose the basis for the mutation made in its favour.
These circumstances provided a reason for examining the correctness
of the earlier mutation entry; however, the ultimate entitlement of the
rival parties could not be determined merely on the basis of the
existence or absence of a particular revenue entry.
17. The legal position regarding the evidentiary value of revenue entries is
well settled. In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2021
SCC OnLine SC 802, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that
mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title to immovable
property and are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes. Where the

12
parties raise a serious dispute regarding ownership, the appropriate
course is to have their respective rights adjudicated by a competent
civil court. Applying this principle to the present case, neither the earlier
entry in favour of respondent No. 2 nor the subsequent entry in favour
of Sukhbati, by itself, conclusively determines title to the disputed land.
Equally, the petitioner's claim founded upon registered conveyances
cannot be rejected merely because the revenue authorities have
subsequently restored the name of Sukhbati. The material question is
whether the land was actually included in the acquisition proceedings
and, if not, what legal effect follows from the subsequent transfers.
Those questions require examination of the underlying acquisition
proceedings and the respective title documents, rather than a
conclusive determination based solely upon the mutation entries.
18. The petitioner, along with the petition, filed a copy of the compensation
disbursement sheet (Annexure P-4), in which the details of the subject
land of Kh. No. 1035/2, area 0.081 hect. And Kh. No. 1289/2, area
0.020 Hect., are given at Sr. No. 41 ( ), and a note has been
फ
appended. The relevant part of the document Annexure P-4 is as
below:-
Q Jherh lq[korh tkS- ghjkeu lk-
1035@2
0-081
0-20
26]520
1289@2
( yks/kh ikjk ),
U;k;ky; rglhynkj jk;iqj ds
;ksx& 0-202
0-50
lhekadu 37&v@12 o”kZ 92&93
fnukad 05@03@93 ds vuqlkj
uD’kk nq:Lrh ds vuqlkj
19. At the end of the said compensation disbursement sheet, another note
is appended which is in consonance with the entry No. 41, which reads
as under:-

13
“ i=d ds vuqdzekad 8]13]16]17]19]22]23]24]26]28]35]43]41 ( l] bZ] Q ) ]
47]49]50 भुगतान gsrq yafcr gSA mDr jkf’k dks pk- dz- 13@11 fn0 2@99
”
dks vkj Mh en esa tek fd;k x;kA
20. From the said entry in the compensation disbursement sheet, it is clear
that the compensation with respect to the subject land of Kh. No.
1035/2 and 1289/2 was deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer.
The Land Acquisition Proceedings of Land Acquisition Case No. 199/A-
82/1988-89 and the award dated 10.12.1990 by the Commissioner,
Raipur, could not be disputed by the respondents. It is only disputed
that the land of Kh. No. 1035/1 and 1289/1, total area 0.50 acres, was
acquired by the State Government, but not the land of Kh. No. 1035/2
and 1289/2, as per the schedule of lands given in the award dated
10.12.1990 (Annexure R-1.6).
21. Another significant aspect of the matter is the jurisdiction exercised by
the Tahsildar while passing the order dated 08.05.2009. Although the
proceedings originated from an application seeking review of the
mutation order dated 15.04.1994, the Tahsildar is stated to have
declared the transactions in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 null and
void and directed restoration of the name of Sukhbati. The distinction
between correcting a revenue entry and adjudicating the validity of
registered conveyances is material. Even if the revenue authorities
were competent to examine whether the disputed land had been
wrongly mutated in favour of respondent No. 2, such jurisdiction would
not, by itself,empower them to conclusively adjudicate upon the validity
of subsequent registered sale deeds or determine rival proprietary
rights. The decision in Jitendra Singh (supra) reinforces this distinction.
Consequently, the impugned order requires scrutiny to determine
whether the Tahsildar confined the exercise of review to the correction

14
of revenue records or exceeded the permissible scope of review
jurisdiction by declaring the subsequent transactions void.
22. The provisions of Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,
1959, also assume significance, which is necessary to notice here and
reads as under:-
51. Review of orders.
(1) The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on
its/his own motion or on the application of any party
interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by
any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in
reference thereto as it/he thinks fit :
Provided that-
(i) if the [Commissioner] [Inserted by Act No. 17 of
2008], Settlement Commissioner, Collector or
Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any
order which he has not himself passed, he shall first
obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer
subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer
proposes to review any order, whether passed by
himself or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain
the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is
immediately subordinate;
(i-a) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has
been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard
in support of such order;
(ii) no order from which an appeal has been made, or
which is the subject of any revision proceedings
shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are
pending be reviewed;
(iii) no order affecting any question of right between
private persons shall be reviewed except on the
application of a party to the proceedings, and no
application for the review of such order shall be
entertained unless it is made within ninety days from
the passing of the order.
2. No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds
provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of
1908).
3. For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be
deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue
Officer who has left the district or who has ceased to
exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom there is
no successor in the district.
4. An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on
revision shall not be reviewed by any Revenue Officer
subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority.

15
23. The power of review is subject to statutory safeguards, including the
requirement of notice to interested parties before an order is varied or
reversed and the requirement that review be sought on legally
permissible grounds. In the present case, the petitioner asserts that,
before the Tahsildar passed the order dated 08.05.2009, the land had
already been transferred through registered conveyances and that the
petitioner's interest was disclosed in the proceedings. If the petitioner
was a person whose recorded or claimed rights were directly affected
by the proposed review, the authority was required to consider the
necessity of impleading the petitioner and affording an effective
opportunity of hearing. The failure to hear an affected party cannot be
treated as a mere procedural irregularity where the order has the effect
of altering the existing revenue entries and prejudicing that party's
interests. The principles of natural justice, therefore, require
examination of whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable
opportunity before the impugned order was passed.
24. The petitioner's objection concerning the original land acquisition
records also warrants consideration. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner moved an application under Section 32 of the Land Revenue
Code seeking production of the original records of Land Acquisition
Case No. 199-A/82/1988-89 and specifically claimed that the
compensation list relied upon by it was not available in the record
before the Board of Revenue. The Board, on 25.05.2015, directed that
the original records be called for, but the revision was subsequently
dismissed on 06.07.2015. In these circumstances, the relevant
question is whether the Board actually secured and examined the
records it had directed to be produced and whether the petitioner's

16
documentary material and objections were duly considered before the
revision was decided. If a material document necessary for determining
whether the disputed land formed part of the acquisition proceedings
was not examined, the decision would require reconsideration on that
ground. The mere fact that the Board of Revenue passed an order after
directing production of the record would not, by itself, establish that the
relevant evidence was duly considered.
25. So far as the objection regarding the statutory remedy of appeal under
Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code is concerned, the same must be
considered in the context of the proceedings actually undertaken and
the nature of the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner. Nevertheless,
the existence of an alternative remedy does not, by itself, exclude the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court where a subordinate authority is
alleged to have acted beyond its jurisdiction or violated the principles of
natural justice. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath , (2015) 5 SCC 423,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that the jurisdiction under Article
227 is supervisory and is to be exercised sparingly, particularly where
interference is necessary to keep subordinate courts and tribunals
within the bounds of their authority. In the present case, the combined
effect of the petitioner's objection regarding the absence of the original
acquisition records, the alleged failure to afford it an opportunity of
hearing, and the Tahsildar's declaration concerning the subsequent
transactions requires the impugned orders to be tested against the
limits of revenue jurisdiction. The subsequent implementation of the
Tahsildar's order in the revenue records does not, by itself, cure any
jurisdictional defect in the order. Equally, the registered Will dated
27.07.2015 relied upon by Dr. Subha Dubey and the claim of the other

17
legal representatives concern representation of the estate of the
deceased respondent No. 1 and do not independently determine title to
the disputed land.
26. Accordingly, the appropriate course would be to interfere with the
impugned order dated 06.07.2015 and the order dated 08.05.2009.
Hence, the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue
and the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the Tahsildar, Raipur, are
set aside , and the matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar, Raipur, for
fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to all affected parties and examining the relevant
land acquisition records. The writ petition is allowed to the above
extent.
27. The parties are directed to appear before the Tahsildar, Raipur, on
18.11.2026 , and then the Tahsildar shall proceed in the case in
accordance with law. It is clarified that no opinion is being expressed
on the ultimate title of the rival parties, which shall remain open to
adjudication before the competent civil court.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Alok