Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Order Voiding Housing Societies’ Land Transfers, Remands 0.081-Hectare Dispute for Fresh Hearing

In brief

The question

1. Whether the revenue authorities could determine the parties’ competing proprietary claims and declare subsequent registered transactions void in mutation-review proceedings.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition to the stated extent, set aside the Board of Revenue’s order dated 6 July 2015 and the Tahsildar’s order dated 8 May 2009, and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration after hearing all affected parties and examining the relevant land-acquisition records.

It also directed

The parties were directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 18 November 2026.

The Court expressed no opinion on ultimate title, leaving that question open for adjudication by the competent civil court.

01Facts

Smt. Sukhbati sought correction of revenue records, asserting that 0.081 hectares forming part of Khasra Nos. 1035/2 and 1289/2 had been wrongly mutated in favour of Karmachari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti in 1994, although the land had not been acquired or transferred by her.

¶ 2–4

The Tahsildar, by order dated 8 May 2009, directed restoration of Sukhbati’s name and declared the subsequent transactions in favour of the other societies void; the Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner society’s revision.

¶ 5

The petitioner claimed to have acquired the land through registered transfers and relied on a compensation disbursement sheet, while also contending that it was not heard and that the original acquisition records had not been examined.

¶ 6–9, 18–20

It challenged the revenue orders under Article 227.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the revenue authorities could determine the parties’ competing proprietary claims and declare subsequent registered transactions void in mutation-review proceedings.

¶ 15, 21

ii.2. Whether the orders could stand where the petitioner alleged that it was not heard and that material land-acquisition records had not been examined.

¶ 15, 23–24

iii.3. Whether the alternative statutory appeal barred the Court’s supervisory intervention in the circumstances.

¶ 25

03Law Applied

Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 permits review subject to statutory safeguards, including notice to interested parties before an order is varied or reversed and compliance with the permissible grounds for review.

¶ 22

Revenue entries are maintained for fiscal purposes and neither create nor extinguish title; serious disputes over ownership are for the competent civil court, as reiterated in Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802.

¶ 17

Revenue authorities’ power to correct entries does not itself authorise them to conclusively determine the validity of registered conveyances.

¶ 21

Under Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory and exercised sparingly, but may be invoked where necessary to address jurisdictional excess or a violation of natural justice; an alternative remedy does not by itself exclude that jurisdiction.

¶ 25

Provisions in the judgment · 3

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 51Section 32Section 44

04Reasoning

The record raised a material dispute over whether the land was included in the acquisition: the petitioner relied on a compensation disbursement sheet referring to the subject khasras, while the respondents disputed that those lands formed part of the award schedule.

¶ 18–20

The Court held that revenue entries alone could not resolve title and that the acquisition records and title documents required examination.

¶ 17, 21, 23–24

It also considered that the Tahsildar’s declaration that subsequent transactions were void potentially exceeded the proper scope of mutation proceedings, and that the petitioner’s claimed interest and objection to the absence of a hearing required consideration.

¶ 17, 21, 23–24

In these circumstances, supervisory intervention was warranted notwithstanding the asserted alternative remedy.

¶ 25