Father’s Death After Arguments Didn’t Void Revenue Remand: Chhattisgarh HC Orders Fresh Mutation Hearing Within 90 Days

The petitioner challenged the Commissioner’s order dated 23 January 2020, which set aside the Naib Tahsildar’s orders concerning correction of revenue records and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Respondent No. 7 had challenged the Naib Tahsildar’s orders by revision before the Commissioner rather than by appeal under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

The petitioner’s father, the opposing party in the revision, died on 14 January 2020, after the matter had been heard and reserved for orders but before the Commissioner pronounced the remand order.

The petitioner also challenged the dismissal of his review application by order dated 12 August 2021, arguing that the revision was not maintainable and that the Commissioner’s order was a nullity because it was pronounced after his father’s death without substitution of legal representatives.

Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a proceeding does not abate where a party dies between the conclusion of the hearing and pronouncement of judgment; the judgment may be pronounced notwithstanding the death and has the same force and effect as if pronounced before it.

The Court relied on N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead by LRs.) v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115, and Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine 2360, concerning that rule.

The availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, particularly where natural justice has been violated; the Court relied on Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107.

The Court held that the alternative-remedy objection did not warrant interference: the dispute had already passed through several rounds of revenue proceedings, and the Commissioner’s order merely remanded the matter for a fresh hearing rather than determining substantive rights.

The remand was intended to ensure that the parties could present oral and documentary evidence and receive a proper hearing.

As the hearing had concluded before the petitioner’s father died, Order XXII Rule 6 applied.

His death before pronouncement therefore did not abate the proceeding or render the Commissioner’s order a nullity; moreover, the order was procedural and caused no prejudice by deciding the merits against the deceased.

It directed the petitioner and Respondent No. 7 to appear before the concerned Tahsildar/Naib Tahsildar, Ahiwara, on 25 November 2026, and directed a fresh decision after affording both parties an opportunity to be heard and to adduce evidence, preferably within 90 days of receipt of the certified order.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and continued the interim protection concerning the subject property until the revenue authority’s decision within the stipulated period.