KULESHWAR SINGH SEN vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010128142023 2026:CGHC:46851

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1895 of 2023
Judgment Reserved On :25.09.2026.
Judgment Delivered On :05.11.2026.
1 - Kuleshwar Singh Sen S/o Mohanlal Sen, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village
Sihad, Post And Tahsil Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
Disaster Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner Land Records, Indravati Bhawan, Ist Floor, Block 2, Naya
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Collector Land Record, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (R), Kurd, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
5 - The Tahsildar, Bhakhara, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
6 - Naib Tahsildar Bhakhara, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
7 - Assistant Director, Nagar, Tatha Gram Nivesh, District Dhamtari Chhatisgarh.
8 - Nagar Panchayat , Bhakhara, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar,
Panchayat Bhakhara District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3178 of 2023
1 - Tankeshwarpuri Goswami S/o Late Omkarpuri Goswani Aged About 55
Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Bhakhara, Ward No.5, District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh

2
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue
And Disaster Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner Land Records, Indravati Bhawan, 1st Floor, Block-2,
Naya Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Collector Land Record, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
5 - The Tahsildar Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
6 - Naib Tahsildar Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
7 - Assistant Director Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
8 - Nagar Panchayat Bhakhara Through Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar
Panchayat Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner in WPC
No.1895/2023
:Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.
For Petitioner in WPC
No.3178/2023
:Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate.
For State/respondent :Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA.
For Respondent No.8 :Mr. Shikhar Shukla appears on behalf of Shri
Anuroop Panda, Advocates.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order

1. Since in the both the writ petitions, identical nature of impugned order
dated 10.02.2023 passed by Collector, District Dhamtari has been
challenged by which, direction has been issued for proceeding with the
cancellation of the sale deed of the petitioners, as such, the petitions
are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3
2. Facts in short giving rise to WPC No.1895 of 2023 are that land
bearing Khasra No. 675/2, admeasuring 4,250 square feet, situated at
Village Bhakhara, P.H. No. 10, B. No. 148, Revenue Mandal Kurud,
Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, was purchased by Ramesh Kumar
Sahu and Chetan Kumar Sahu from Kolhu Ram through a registered
sale deed dated 25.08.2008. Thereafter, the names of Ramesh Kumar
Sahu and Chetan Kumar Sahu were duly mutated in the revenue
records in respect of the said property. The petitioner subsequently
purchased a portion of the aforesaid property, admeasuring 1,230
square feet, situated at Village Bhakhara, Ward No. 7, now falling
under Patwari Halka No. 17, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, from
Ramesh Kumar Sahu and Chetan Kumar Sahu for a total sale
consideration of Rs. 1,43,500/-. A registered sale deed dated
26.08.2020 was duly executed between the parties in favour of the
petitioner. Pursuant to the purchase of the aforesaid property, the
petitioner submitted an application for mutation before Respondent No.
8 on 29.09.2020 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 6,000/-. During
the mutation proceedings, objections were invited, whereupon one
Santoshi Nishad submitted an objection before Respondent No. 8
challenging the petitioner's claim in respect of the property.
Consequently, a notice dated 19.10.2020 was issued to the petitioner,
calling upon him to produce the relevant documents and evidence in
support of his claim. The petitioner duly submitted his reply to the

4
aforesaid notice along with all relevant documents and categorically
stated that he had been in possession of the property since the date of
its purchase. The petitioner cooperated with the authorities and
furnished the requisite documents in support of his lawful ownership
and possession of the property. Pursuant to the objection raised by
Santoshi Nishad, a team headed by the Revenue Inspector was
constituted to conduct an inquiry into the matter, and a report was
called for from the concerned authorities. In its report, the Revenue
Inspector stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 675/2, admeasuring
0.40 hectare, had been declared as Abadi land by Respondent No. 3
vide order dated 09.12.2004. The aforesaid inquiry further revealed
that several sale deeds had been executed in respect of the land
bearing Khasra No. 675/2. It was also observed that separate land had
been earmarked for the market and that the land in question had not
been transferred to the Nagar Panchayat. Furthermore, it was noted
that separate land bearing Khasra Nos. 1602 and 1603, admeasuring
2.00 hectares, had been proposed for the Pouni Pasari Yojana. The
report further recorded that the allegations made by Santoshi Nishad
in her complaint were not found to be true. Petitioner also deposited
the applicable taxes in respect of the property, thereby complying with
the relevant requirements imposed by the authorities. After completion
of the mutation proceedings, the petitioner submitted an application
seeking permission to undertake construction over the property and

5
deposited the requisite fees before the concerned authorities. The
petitioner furnished all the documents required for obtaining
development permission. Upon consideration of the petitioner's
application and the documents submitted by him, Respondent No. 7
granted development permission to the petitioner vide letter/order
dated 19.01.2022, subject to the conditions specified therein.
Respondent No. 8 also passed a resolution dated 11.03.2022, granting
its no-objection in favour of the petitioner in respect of the proposed
construction over the subject property. Thereafter, Respondent No. 7
issued an order dated 23.03.2023 granting permission for building
construction over the subject property. Thus, the petitioner obtained
the requisite permissions from the competent authorities after following
the prescribed procedure and complying with the applicable
requirements. After obtaining the requisite permissions from the
concerned authorities, the petitioner commenced construction over the
subject property. However, thereafter, certain complaints were made
against the petitioner by persons whom the petitioner alleges to be
politically motivated. The petitioner contends that the complaints were
intended to exert undue pressure upon the authorities and obstruct the
petitioner's lawful enjoyment and use of the property. The petitioner
further alleges that the action taken against him was motivated by
political considerations, as he is a member of the Bharatiya Janata
Party. It is pertinent to mention that Santoshi Nishad, who had earlier

6
raised objections during the mutation proceedings and whose
allegations were not found to be true in the inquiry conducted by the
Revenue Inspector, again submitted complaints against the petitioner
before the concerned authorities. On the basis of the subsequent
complaints, the Tahsildar issued a notice dated 21.06.2022 to the
petitioner through Respondent No. 5, despite the fact that the relevant
documents had already been furnished by the petitioner and an inquiry
had previously been conducted into the allegations. The petitioner duly
submitted his reply dated 24.06.2022 to the aforesaid notice,
reiterating his lawful ownership and possession of the property and
placing on record the registered sale deed, the permissions granted by
the competent authorities and other relevant documents. The
petitioner specifically contended that the allegations levelled against
him were false and intended to harass him. Subsequently, Respondent
No. 3 passed an order dated 10.02.2023, directing Respondent No. 4
to lodge a First Information Report against the concerned Patwari and
to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the petitioner's registered
sale deed. The aforesaid order was passed without issuing any notice
to the petitioner, without affording him an opportunity of hearing and
without providing him an opportunity to present his case.
3. Facts in short giving rise to WPC No.3178 of 2023 are that land
bearing Khasra No. 675/2 situated at Village Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud,
District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, which was purchased by the petitioner

7
through registered sale deeds from various purchasers who had
acquired the respective portions of the land from their original owners
and had duly recorded their names in the revenue records. Ramesh
Kumar and Chetan purchased land admeasuring 4,250 square feet,
situated at Village Bhakhara, P.H. No. 10, B.No. 148, bearing Khasra
No. 675/2, from Kolhuram through a registered sale deed dated
23.08.2008. Pursuant thereto, their names were duly mutated in the
revenue records. Dhaneshwar Sahu purchased land admeasuring
1,770 square feet, bearing Khasra No. 675/2, situated at Village
Bhakhara, from Sukhram Sahu through a registered sale deed dated
21.01.2011, and his name was duly mutated in the revenue records.
Budhram purchased land admeasuring 300 square feet, bearing
Khasra No. 675/2, situated at Village Bhakhara, P.H. No. 10, B.No.
148, from Kolhuram through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2008,
and his name was duly mutated in the revenue records. Similarly,
Harish Sahu purchased land admeasuring 325 square feet, bearing
Khasra No. 675/2, situated at Village Bhakhara, P.H. No. 10, B.No.
148, from Kolhuram through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2008,
and his name was duly mutated in the revenue records. Relying upon
the aforesaid chain of registered transactions, the petitioner purchased
different portions of the land bearing Khasra No. 675/2 from the
aforementioned persons through registered sale deeds in the year
2020, as i) The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 1,500 square

8
feet from Ramesh Kumar and Chetan through a registered sale deed
dated 26.08.2020. ii). The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 897
square feet from Dhaneshwar Sahu through a registered sale deed
dated 04.08.2020. iii). The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 300
square feet from Budhram through a registered sale deed dated
28.08.2020. iv). The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 325
square feet from Harish Sahu through a registered sale deed dated
04.08.2020. The aforesaid properties are situated at Village Bhakhara,
Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, and are identified by Khasra No.
675/2. The petitioner acquired the said portions through registered
instruments of sale. Prior to and in connection with the aforesaid
transactions and the subsequent mutation proceedings, the Nagar
Panchayat, Bhakhara issued No Objection Certificates (NOCs) on the
dates stated to be 09.01.2020, 24.08.2020, 05.09.2014 and
20.08.2014. Further, the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution
Company Limited (CSPDCL) issued an electricity NOC dated
29.01.2022. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application for
mutation of his name in the revenue records and deposited the
requisite fee of Rs. 6,000/- before the competent authority. An
objection was subsequently raised by Smt. Santoshi Nishad, a
Councillor (Parshad), allegedly at the instance of political leaders
belonging to the ruling Congress Party. Pursuant to the said objection,
the Tahsildar, Bhakhara issued a memorandum dated 21.12.2021 in

9
connection with the proceedings concerning the land in question. The
Tahsildar, Bhakhara initiated proceedings on the basis of the
complaint and prepared a panchnama/report, culminating in a
memorandum dated 31.10.2020. As per the petitioner's case, the
objection raised in the said proceedings was rejected. Revenue Case
No. 202110132300019 for the year 2021–2022 was also registered,
and demarcation of the land was conducted, pursuant to which a
report was prepared. Smt. Santoshi Nishad again submitted a
complaint in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 675/2. The
concerned revenue authority, while dealing with the complaint,
observed that the question of declaring a registered sale deed void
falls within the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court. It was further
stated that the proposal or offer of the Gram Panchayat had been
rejected by an order dated 19.06.2013. A meeting of the Nagar
Panchayat, Bhakhara was held on 11.03.2022, in which a resolution
concerning Khasra No. 675/2 was passed, and permission for
construction was granted in respect of the land in question. Further, an
advertisement relating to the mutation list had been published on
02.03.2021. On 11.11.2020, the Tahsildar, Bhakhara seized certain
articles, including wire, tin sheets, bamboo, cement and iron pillars,
from the land bearing Khasra No. 675/2, Ward No. 7, without issuing
prior notice to the petitioner, notwithstanding the petitioner's claim that
he possessed valid permission for construction of a house on the said

10
land. The petitioner subsequently submitted an application dated
14.12.2022 seeking the return of the seized articles, relying upon the
NOCs and permissions available to him. Upon examination of the
petitioner's claim and entitlement, the seized articles were returned on
03.01.2023 by the Nagar Panchayat/Nagar Palika, Bhakhara. The
petitioner asserts that he possesses valid permission for construction
of a house on the land in question, duly issued by the competent
authority. Further, the petitioner relies upon the relevant record
concerning possession, commonly referred to as the Kabja Khasra, in
respect of the abadi land bearing Khasra No. 675/2. A proposal
concerning the establishment of a Haat Bazar was considered in a
Panchayat meeting held on 12.08.2011. The petitioner relies upon the
proceedings of the said meeting and the accompanying list of lands to
contend that the land purchased by him was not earmarked or
allocated for the purpose of the Haat Bazar. A team headed by the
Revenue Inspector was constituted to examine the status and nature
of the land bearing Khasra No. 675/2. The report prepared by the
team, read with the order of the Collector dated 09.12.2004, records
that the land in question was classified as abadi land and that several
sale deeds had been executed in respect of portions of the said
Khasra number. The aforesaid report and the related revenue records
further indicate, according to the petitioner, that separate land had
been identified for the purposes of the Bazar and that the land in

11
question had not been transferred to the Nagar Panchayat. It was also
noted that separate land bearing Khasra Nos. 1602 and 1603,
admeasuring 2.00 hectares, had been proposed for the Pouni Pasari
Yojana. The report further questioned the correctness of the complaint
made by Smt. Santoshi Nishad. Despite the aforesaid registered sale
deeds, revenue proceedings, demarcation report, permissions and
other relevant records relied upon by the petitioner, the Collector,
Dhamtari passed Order No. 315/Land Records/Land Records/C.A.
Land Records/2023, dated 10.02.2023, in relation to the land in
question.
4. Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner in WPC No.1895 of 2023
submits that order dated 10.02.2023 was passed in an arbitrary and
unfair manner, without due application of mind and in violation of the
principles of natural justice. The petitioner further contends that
Respondent No. 3 merely reproduced the allegations contained in the
complaints submitted by the complainants without conducting an
independent and impartial inquiry or considering the petitioner's
explanation and the documents already placed on record. The said
order was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner came to
know about the same through local newspapers and thereafter
obtained a copy of the order under the Right to Information Act. The
petitioner submits that the direction to initiate proceedings for
cancellation of his registered sale deed, without following the

12
procedure established by law and without affording him an opportunity
of hearing, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The petitioner
contends that the impugned action threatens his lawful ownership,
possession and enjoyment of the subject property and is contrary to
the protection guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law. He also submits that the concerned
authorities, having previously considered the relevant documents,
conducted an inquiry into the objections and granted the requisite
development and building construction permissions, could not
subsequently proceed against the petitioner in an arbitrary manner
without due process of law. The petitioner contends that the impugned
action is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the
constitutional protection of property rights. Being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 10.02.2023 and the consequential action
initiated or proposed against him, the petitioner has approached this
Court seeking appropriate reliefs for protection of his lawful rights and
for quashing the impugned action, in accordance with law.
5. Mr. Ritesh Verma, counsel for the petitioner in WPC No.3178/2023
submits that the order dated 10.02.2023 was passed without issuing
any notice to him and without affording him an opportunity of hearing,
although the order adversely affected his rights and interests in the
purchased property. The Collector also directed the lodging of an FIR

13
against the Patwari and initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the
registered sale deeds. The petitioner contends that such directions
were issued without affording him an opportunity to explain his case
and in disregard of the relevant documents and proceedings
concerning the land. The petitioner further contends that the impugned
order was passed under the influence of political pressure and suffers
from arbitrariness, bias and misuse of authority. The petitioner states
that the order was never communicated to him and that he came to
know of its existence through a newspaper report. Thereafter, he
immediately applied for a copy of the order under the Right to
Information Act. The petitioner submits that he acquired the land
through registered sale deeds, relying upon the title and revenue
records of his predecessors, and that the relevant authorities had
undertaken proceedings concerning the nature, demarcation and use
of the land. He further relies upon the NOCs, construction permission,
mutation-related records and other documents in support of his claim.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.02.2023
passed by the Collector, Dhamtari, as well as the consequential action
initiated pursuant thereto, particularly the direction for registration of an
FIR against the Patwari and the proposed proceedings for cancellation
of the registered sale deeds. He also submits that Collector had no
jurisdiction to direct cancellation of registered sale deeds merely on
the basis of an administrative enquiry. Questions relating to title,

14
ownership, validity of registered sale deeds, can only be adjudicated
by competent Civil Court. Revenue Authorties cannot declare
registered sale deeds void. {See :- Balwant Singh vs. Daulat Singh
{(1997 )7 SCC 137} , Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner {(2007)
6 SCC 186}}.
6. Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned State counsel submits that upon perusal
of the documents placed on record, particularly the registered sale
deed dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure P/1), it is evident that the land
bearing Khasra No. 675/2 has been described as Abadi land, and the
petitioner has purchased land admeasuring 1,230 square feet. Section
243 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Code”) deals with the concept of Abadi land. The
nature, classification and legal status of the land in question are,
therefore, required to be examined in the light of the relevant statutory
provisions and revenue records. If the land in question is established
to be Government Abadi land, the petitioner cannot claim rights
contrary to the applicable statutory provisions merely on the basis of a
registered sale deed. The registration of a sale deed, by itself, does
not conclusively establish the transferor's lawful title to the property or
validate a transfer that is otherwise prohibited by law. The State
Government, through the competent revenue authorities, retains the
powers conferred upon it by law to regulate and protect Government
land and to take appropriate action in respect of any unauthorized

15
transfer thereof. On the basis of complaints made by Smt. Santoshi
Nishad and Shri Bharat Nahar, the Collector, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh),
initiated an inquiry into the matter. The petitioner was also afforded an
opportunity of hearing during the course of the proceedings, as is
evident from Annexures P/9 and P/10. Accordingly, the proceedings
initiated by the Collector were undertaken pursuant to complaints
regarding the nature and transfer of the land in question, and the
petitioner was given an opportunity to present his case before the
competent authority. Upon perusal of Annexure P/11, it is evident that
the petitioner's principal grievance is directed against the second
paragraph of the order dated 10.02.2023, whereby the Collector,
Dhamtari, directed the Chief Municipal Officer to institute appropriate
civil proceedings seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed
relating to the land in question is null and void. The impugned direction
was issued in the backdrop of alleged irregularities concerning the
preparation of the map and the failure of the concerned revenue
officials to update the relevant revenue records. In view of the alleged
irregularities and the question concerning the purported transfer of
Abadi land, the Collector considered it appropriate to direct the
initiation of civil proceedings for adjudication of the validity of the
registered sale deed by the competent Civil Court. The Collector also
issued directions concerning the suspension of the concerned
Patwaris and the registration of an FIR against the officials allegedly

16
responsible for the irregularities. The aforesaid actions were directed
in the context of the alleged administrative and revenue irregularities
and the need to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is
submitted that the Collector, vide order dated 10.02.2023 has merely
directed the Chief Municipal Officer to institute appropriate civil
proceedings before the competent Civil Court for seeking a declaration
regarding the validity of the registered sale deed. The impugned
direction does not, by itself, constitute a final judicial adjudication
declaring the sale deed null and void. The validity of the sale deed and
the rights, if any, claimed by the petitioner are matters that may be
adjudicated by the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. The
petitioner shall have the opportunity to raise all legally permissible
objections and defend his interests in the event that such civil
proceedings are instituted. Consequently, the direction to institute civil
proceedings, by itself, does not amount to a final determination of the
petitioner's title or civil rights in respect of the property. It is further
submitted that, prior to the passing of the order dated 10.02.2023, the
petitioner was afforded an opportunity to present his case, as is
evident from the letter dated 19.10.2020 pursuant to which the
petitioner – Kuleshwar submitted his reply but petitioner –
Tankeshwarpuri has not submitted any reply. Therefore, the
petitioner's contention that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior
to the passing of the impugned order is contrary to the documents

17
available on record. In these circumstances, the impugned direction,
insofar as it relates to the institution of civil proceedings, cannot be
assailed merely on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded an
opportunity of hearing, particularly when the record reflects that an
opportunity to submit his response had been provided. It is submitted
that the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court to challenge the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the
Collector, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), despite the availability of an
alternative statutory remedy under the applicable provisions of the
Code of 1959, before the competent revenue authority, including the
Commissioner, Raipur Division, as may be applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The petitioner has not demonstrated any
sufficient ground warranting interference by this Court in the exercise
of its extraordinary jurisdiction without first availing the statutory
remedy available under the law. It is, therefore, submitted that the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, subject to the
discretion of this Court and the applicability of the recognized
exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy.
7. Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 8,
Nagar Panchayat, Bhakhara, submits that the land in question, bearing
Khasra No. 675/2, was originally recorded as Abadi land and that the
Nagar Panchayat has taken steps in accordance with the relevant

18
revenue records and applicable provisions of law. He submits that the
Nagar Panchayat, in its meeting dated 11.03.2022, passed a
resolution granting no-objection for construction over the subject land.
It is further submitted that the petitioners have obtained registered sale
deeds from their respective vendors and that the relevant permissions
and NOCs were issued by the competent authorities. Learned counsel
submits that the Nagar Panchayat has no authority to declare the
registered sale deeds null and void, as such questions fall within the
jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court. He, therefore, submits that the
rights and title of the petitioners are required to be adjudicated by the
competent Civil Court in accordance with law.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the petition carefully.
9. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 10.02.2023, it appears
that the Collector, District Dhamtari, upon examining the relevant
revenue records and the inquiry report, found that certain irregularities
had occurred in the preparation and maintenance of the revenue
records relating to Khasra No.675/2.
10. The Collector observed that although the original settlement had
declared the land as Abadi land, the then concerned Halka Patwari
had allegedly made incorrect corrections in the revenue records and
prepared an erroneous map, resulting in subsequent transactions in
respect of the land in question. On the basis of the aforesaid findings,

19
the Collector directed the authorities to take appropriate action against
the concerned revenue officials, including suspension, registration of
an FIR and initiation of departmental proceedings, in accordance with
law. The Collector further observed that due to the alleged incorrect
preparation of the revenue records and map, the total area reflected
against Khasra No.675/2 had increased from 0.40 hectare to 0.56
hectare. It was observed that an additional area of 0.16 hectare, which
allegedly fell within the boundaries of Government grassland bearing
Khasra No.1603, had been included in Khasra No.675/2. Accordingly,
the Collector directed the Tahsildar, Bhakhara, to create a separate
Khasra No.675/3 for the additional area of 0.16 hectare so that the
revenue records could be corrected and maintained accurately.
11. The Collector further observed that out of the aforesaid additional
area, 0.10 hectare was occupied by the Pouni Pasari established by
Nagar Panchayat, Bhakhara, whereas the remaining 0.06 hectare had
allegedly been treated as Abadi land and transferred through
registered sale deeds. Consequently, the Chief Municipal Officer,
Nagar Panchayat, Bhakhara, was directed to institute appropriate
proceedings before the competent Civil Court for seeking a declaration
that the concerned sale transactions were null and void.
12. A perusal of the record further reveals that the impugned order was
passed pursuant to complaints submitted by Smt. Santoshi Nishad,
Councillor, Nagar Panchayat, Bhakhara, and Shri Bharat Nahar,

20
former President of the Nagar Panchayat, alleging illegal purchase and
sale of land forming part of the Haat Bazar and other public utility
lands bearing Khasra Nos.675/2, 1602 and 1603. The complaints also
contained allegations concerning illegal transfer of Nagar Panchayat
land, including allegations relating to the sale of land associated with
the pond and other public properties. The Collector considered the
aforesaid complaints after obtaining a detailed inquiry report from the
Additional Collector, Dhamtari.
13. The principal question that arises for consideration in the present writ
petitions is whether the Collector, in exercise of his administrative and
revenue jurisdiction, could himself declare the registered sale deeds
executed in favour of the petitioners null and void or direct their
cancellation.
14. It is a settled position of law that mutation entries in revenue records
neither create nor extinguish title to immovable property. Similarly,
revenue authorities, while exercising their jurisdiction under the
revenue laws, cannot adjudicate complicated questions of title or
declare a registered sale deed void where such adjudication falls
within the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court.
15. However, in the present case, upon a careful reading of the impugned
order, it is evident that the Collector has not himself declared the
registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners null and
void. Rather, he has directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar

21
Panchayat, Bhakhara, to institute appropriate civil proceedings before
the competent Civil Court seeking a declaration regarding the validity
of the transactions.
16. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order, insofar as it relates to
the registered sale deeds, is only an administrative direction to initiate
appropriate civil proceedings and does not constitute an adjudication
of the petitioners' title or a declaration invalidating their registered sale
deeds.
17. It is also not disputed before this Court that, as on the date of
consideration of these writ petitions, no civil suit pursuant to the
aforesaid direction has been instituted against the petitioners.
18. In the event that the competent authority or the Nagar Panchayat
institutes a civil suit seeking a declaration that the registered sale
deeds are null and void, the petitioners shall be entitled to contest the
proceedings in accordance with law. They shall have the opportunity to
file their written statements, produce documentary and oral evidence
and raise all permissible objections concerning the nature of the land,
their vendors' title, the validity of the registered sale deeds and their
rights over the subject property.
19. The question whether the subject land was Government land, Abadi
land or land earmarked for any public purpose, as well as the validity
of the registered sale transactions, would be required to be

22
adjudicated by the competent Civil Court on the basis of the pleadings
and evidence led by the parties.
20. The contention of the petitioners that their registered sale deeds have
already been declared null and void by the Collector is, therefore,
misconceived. No such declaration has been made under the
impugned order.
21. The petitioners' grievance regarding violation of the principles of
natural justice, insofar as the proposed civil proceedings are
concerned, is also premature. The direction issued by the Collector
does not finally determine any civil right or title of the petitioners. In the
event of institution of civil proceedings, the petitioners will have a full
and effective opportunity to defend their respective interests before the
competent Civil Court.
22. It is, however, clarified that the aforesaid observations shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of
the rival claims concerning the title, classification or legal status of the
subject land.
23. Also this Court, while entertaining the writ petitions, had passed
interim orders dated 24.04.2023 in WPC No.1895 of 2023 and
17.07.2023 in WPC No.3178 of 2023, staying the effect and operation
of the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 only to the extent it
concerned the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the

23
respective petitioners. However, it was specifically clarified that the
State authorities would remain at liberty to proceed further in respect
of the other directions contained in the impugned order.
24. Considering the nature of the dispute and the fact that the petitioners
claim to have purchased the subject properties through registered sale
deeds, relying upon the existing revenue records and permissions
issued by the competent authorities, this Court finds that their rights
cannot be adversely affected merely on the basis of an administrative
inquiry without adjudication by the competent forum.
25. The petitioners cannot be held responsible for any alleged
irregularities committed by the revenue officials in the preparation or
maintenance of the revenue records, merely because they
subsequently purchased the land on the basis of the records available
at the relevant time. Nevertheless, the question whether the vendors
possessed transferable title and whether the transactions are legally
sustainable shall remain open for adjudication before the competent
Civil Court.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the direction issued by the Collector to the Chief Municipal
Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Bhakhara, to institute appropriate civil
proceedings for seeking a declaration regarding the validity of the
registered sale deeds does not, by itself, warrant interference in the
present writ jurisdiction.

24
27. At the same time, the authorities are required to ensure that no
coercive action is taken against the petitioners in respect of their
purchased properties merely on the basis of the impugned order,
unless such action is taken in accordance with law and pursuant to an
appropriate order passed by a competent forum.
28. Accordingly, it is directed that:
(i) The concerned authorities shall not take any coercive steps
against the petitioners in respect of the subject properties
pursuant to the impugned order dated 10.02.2023, till
appropriate civil proceedings are instituted before the competent
Civil Court, if not already instituted.
(ii) In the event of institution of any civil suit seeking a
declaration that the registered sale deeds executed in favour of
the petitioners are null and void, the petitioners shall be
impleaded as necessary parties and shall be afforded an
opportunity to contest the proceedings in accordance with law.
(iii) All questions relating to the title, ownership, nature,
classification and validity of the registered sale deeds shall
remain open for adjudication by the competent Civil Court,
without being influenced by any observations made in the
present order.

25
(iv) The State authorities shall remain at liberty to proceed with
the other directions contained in the impugned order dated
10.02.2023, particularly those relating to the alleged
irregularities committed by the concerned revenue officials,
strictly in accordance with law.
29. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash