An unregistered relinquishment deed cannot transfer title in immovable property.

The petitioners challenged the Board of Revenue’s order dated 24 June 2026, which allowed the respondents’ revision, set aside the Commissioner, Raipur Division’s order dated 20 December 2021, and affirmed the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order dated 24 March 2007.

The dispute concerned an entry made on 19 June 1981 deleting Buchi Bai’s name from the revenue records and recording petitioner No. 1, Narayan Soni, alone.

The petitioners relied on an alleged relinquishment deed/family settlement executed by Buchi Bai, whereas Buchi Bai disputed its legal effect and sought restoration of her rights.

Buchi Bai initially instituted proceedings under Sections 109/110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which were later withdrawn.

She also filed an appeal before the SDO challenging the 1981 mutation entry, along with an application for condonation of delay.

The delay was condoned by the SDO on 21 June 2001; that order was affirmed by the Additional Collector and thereafter by the Board of Revenue on 20 July 2004, and was not further challenged.

On merits, the SDO allowed Buchi Bai’s appeal on 24 March 2007, holding that the alleged relinquishment deed required registration and that its voluntary execution had not been established; directions were issued to mutate the names of Buchi Bai’s legal heirs.

The Commissioner subsequently set aside the SDO’s order, but the Board of Revenue restored the SDO’s decision on 24 June 2026.

The petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution against the Board’s order.

Whether the Commissioner was entitled to reconsider the delay in filing Buchi Bai’s appeal when the condonation of delay had already been affirmed by the Board of Revenue and had attained finality?

Whether the unregistered document relied upon by the petitioners could validly transfer title or extinguish Buchi Bai’s interest in the property?

Whether the Board of Revenue’s order suffered from perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, requiring compulsory registration of instruments that create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish rights in immovable property; an unregistered relinquishment deed cannot transfer title where registration is legally mandatory.

It also referred to Sections 54, 59 and 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in support of the principle that transfer of rights in immovable property of the relevant value must be effected through a duly registered instrument.

Further, the Court applied the doctrine of finality of adjudication: once the order condoning delay had been affirmed by the Board of Revenue and remained unchallenged, the issue could not be reopened by the Commissioner.

Under Article 227, interference is warranted only where the subordinate authority has committed jurisdictional error, perversity, or comparable legal infirmity.

The Court held that the issue of limitation had already been conclusively determined.

The SDO’s order condoning the delay was affirmed through successive proceedings, culminating in the Board of Revenue’s order dated 20 July 2004, which had attained finality.

Therefore, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reconsider the delay while examining the merits of the appeal.

On the substantive issue, the Court rejected the petitioners’ attempt to characterise the document as a family settlement rather than a relinquishment deed.

Since the document was relied upon to extinguish Buchi Bai’s interest and transfer title in the property, registration was legally necessary.

The presence of witnesses, the passage of time, Buchi Bai’s educational background, or the alleged long-standing possession could not cure the absence of a registered instrument.

The Board of Revenue had correctly applied the registration requirements and committed neither perversity nor jurisdictional error.

The Court held that the Commissioner could not reopen the finally decided issue of delay and that the unregistered relinquishment deed could not transfer title or extinguish Buchi Bai’s rights.

The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before the competent forum for adjudication of their substantive claim.