Chhattisgarh HC Bars Coercive Action Against Bhakhara Land Buyers Under Collector’s Order Until Civil Suit Over Their Sale Deeds is Instituted

The petitioners purchased portions of land bearing Khasra No. 675/2 at Bhakhara through registered sale deeds in 2020, relying on their vendors’ title and revenue records.

The land had been recorded as abadi land, but complaints alleged that revenue-record irregularities had led to the inclusion of additional land, including Government grassland, in Khasra No. 675/2.

Following an inquiry, the Collector’s order dated 10 February 2023 directed action concerning the revenue officials, correction of the records, and the institution of civil proceedings by the Nagar Panchayat to challenge the sale transactions.

The petitioners challenged the order, contending that it affected their rights without due process; the State maintained that the Collector had only directed a civil suit, not declared the deeds void. No such suit had been instituted when the writ petitions were considered.

Mutation entries in revenue records neither create nor extinguish title to immovable property, and revenue authorities cannot adjudicate complicated questions of title or declare a registered sale deed void where that determination falls within the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court.

A direction to institute civil proceedings is not itself a judicial determination of title or the validity of a sale deed; those questions must be decided by the Civil Court on the parties’ pleadings and evidence.

The State referred to Section 243 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, concerning abadi land, while the petitioners’ counsel cited Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137, and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; the Court’s stated reasoning rested on the general principles above.

The Court read the Collector’s order as directing the Nagar Panchayat to seek a declaration from the competent Civil Court, rather than declaring the sale deeds void itself.

Because the order did not finally determine the petitioners’ title or civil rights, the challenge to the proposed civil proceedings on natural-justice grounds was premature: the petitioners would be able to contest any suit and raise their claims there.

The Court left the land’s title, classification and the validity of the transactions open for adjudication, while holding that the petitioners could not face coercive action concerning their properties merely on the basis of the administrative inquiry.

Both writ petitions were disposed of with directions that the authorities take no coercive steps concerning the petitioners’ properties pursuant to the impugned order until appropriate civil proceedings are instituted, if not already instituted; that the petitioners be impleaded and allowed to contest any such suit; and that all questions of title, ownership, land classification and deed validity remain open for the Civil Court.

The State remained free to proceed lawfully against the revenue officials in respect of the alleged irregularities.