Collector Lacks Jurisdiction to Declare Registered Sale Deeds Null and Void under Land Revenue Code.

The petitioner purchased 40 decimals of land in Village Namnakala via a registered sale deed dated 17.08.2023

The Respondent No. 2 (Collector, Surguja) initiated a revenue revision and passed an order dated 28.03.2024, declaring several registered sale deeds, including the petitioner’s, as null and void

The Collector’s reasoning was that the original land allotment (patta) to Respondent No. 5 was illegal, rendering all subsequent transactions void ab initio under Section 165(10) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959

The petitioner challenged this order as an act exceeding the Collector's jurisdiction

1. Whether the Collector, while exercising powers under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, possesses the jurisdiction to declare a registered sale deed as null and void.

The court applied Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which vests the power to cancel or annul instruments exclusively in Civil Courts

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S.P. Velayutham and others (2022) 8 SCC 210, which established that challenges to the validity of registered documents and declarations of title fall strictly within the domain of Civil Courts, not Writ Courts or revenue authorities

the court interpreted the scope of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, noting that revenue authorities lack the statutory authority to annul registered instruments

The court reasoned that while the Collector has the power to manage revenue records and examine the legality of land allotments under the Code, such power does not extend to the judicial act of annulling a registered sale deed

The validity of a registered document involves questions of title and execution—described by the Supreme Court as the "DNA" of the document—which can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court after a full trial

The High Court found that the Collector, by declaring the deeds void ab initio and directing the correction of records based on that declaration, usurped the jurisdiction of the Civil Court

Consequently, the impugned order was deemed an overreach of statutory authority and unsustainable in law

The writ petition was allowed, and the Collector’s order dated 28.03.2024 was quashed and set aside

the court granted liberty to the State authorities to seek appropriate legal remedies against the original allotment or the transactions before a competent forum

No order as to costs was made