Possession cannot be recorded in revenue records based solely on an unregistered agreement to sale.

The petitioners are the recorded owners of land measuring 7.49 acres (Khasra Nos. 377, 378, 379) in Village Bodri, Bilaspur, a title affirmed by a competent Civil Court

Respondent No. 5, claiming possession via an unregistered agreement to sale dated 11.05.2014, moved an application before the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 3) to record his possession in Column No. 12 of the Khasra Panchshala

At the time of this application, a First Appeal (No. 224/2015) concerning the same property was already pending before the High Court

The petitioners challenged the legality of the Tahsildar’s revenue proceedings (Case No. 202411075700001/B-121/23-24), arguing they were initiated without jurisdiction and during the pendency of a civil appeal

1. Whether a revenue authority has the jurisdiction to record possession in revenue records based solely on an unregistered agreement to sale

2. Whether the Tahsildar could legally proceed with mutating possession records while a First Appeal regarding the title of the same property was pending before the High Court

The Court applied the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, regarding the maintenance of land records

an unregistered agreement to sale does not constitute a valid legal document for the purpose of transferring interest or providing evidentiary proof of possession in revenue proceedings

revenue authorities cannot bypass civil court adjudications, especially when the matter is sub judice in a higher forum

The Court reasoned that the Tahsildar’s initiation of proceedings was fundamentally flawed because the claim was rooted in an agreement to sale that lacked legal sanctity due to non-registration

The Court observed that such a document cannot be admitted as evidence to alter revenue entries

the Court noted that since a First Appeal (No. 224/2015) is currently pending, any attempt by revenue authorities to record possession based on a disputed private contract creates a risk of parallel and conflicting proceedings

The Court emphasized that revenue authorities lack the power to pass orders directing the recording of possession on the basis of such an agreement, as possession must be secured in accordance with substantive law, and the petitioners’ title had already been recognized by a civil court

It specifically ruled that possession cannot be recorded in revenue records based on an unregistered agreement to sale

Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the observation that the Tahsildar’s proceedings are invalid, while clarifying that the parties are at liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the Civil Court to secure their rights or possession