Revenue authorities cannot nullify registered sale deeds while exercising revisional jurisdiction over mutation entries.

M/s Bhaskarpara Coal Company Limited purchased agricultural/revenue land from Respondents Nos. 1–3 through two registered sale deeds dated 16 September 2010, intending to use the land for compensatory afforestation connected with coal-block development.

The purchasers’ names were subsequently mutated in the revenue records on 15 November 2010.

Following a Tahsildar’s enquiry, the Collector initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

The Collector found that portions of the land were Government/“Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle” land, restricted Manwar Gautiya land, or land originally belonging to members of the Pahadi Korwa Scheduled Tribe.

He cancelled the mutation, directed restoration of the earlier revenue entries, and treated the transactions as contrary to statutory restrictions under Section 165 of the Code.

The petitioners contended that the old revenue records, including the Wajib-ul-arz, entries of 1958, and Mutation Entry No. 14 of 1967, established transferable rights in the vendors; that the proceedings were delayed and violated natural justice; and that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to annul registered sale deeds.

The Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioners’ revision and affirmed the Collector’s order on 12 March 2015.

The petitioners therefore invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Collector validly exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, within a reasonable time, to examine and cancel the mutation effected in favour of the petitioners?

2. Whether the Collector could, in proceedings concerning the legality of mutation, adjudicate disputed title and declare the registered sale deeds dated 16 September 2010 null and void?

3. Whether reliance on the revenue and settlement records, and the alleged non-compliance with Sections 165(6) and 165(7-b) of the Code, justified interference with the mutation?

4. Whether non-supply of the Tahsildar’s preliminary enquiry report and the petitioners’ non-participation in that enquiry violated natural justice so as to vitiate the proceedings?

The Court applied Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which permits revisional scrutiny of the legality and propriety of revenue orders, including mutation orders, although suo motu power must be exercised within a reasonable time; what constitutes reasonable time depends on the facts of each case.

Section 110 governs mutation, while Section 165(6) restricts transfers of land held by a Bhumiswami belonging to an aboriginal tribe in favour of a non-tribal person, and Section 165(7-b) restricts transfers of land held from the State Government or acquired as Bhumiswami under Section 158(3) without requisite permission.

Section 165(10) bars registration of documents contravening Section 165, while Section 170-B provides a specific statutory mechanism for enquiry and restoration in cases involving alleged transfers by members of an aboriginal tribe.

Revenue and mutation entries are fiscal in character and do not, by themselves, create or extinguish title.

The Court relied on Sree Kalp Agri Farm Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and the principles quoted from Mulayam Singh v. Budhuwa Chamar and Murari Lal v. State of M.P., holding that reasonable time is fact-dependent and that revision may be initiated promptly after discovery of an alleged illegal mutation.

A revenue authority cannot assume the plenary jurisdiction of a Civil Court to cancel or formally nullify a registered conveyance.

The Court held that the proceedings were not impermissibly delayed because the mutation was made in November 2010, the Tahsildar’s enquiry occurred in 2012, and the Collector initiated proceedings soon thereafter; the fact that some supporting revenue records dated back to 1958 or 1967 did not make the challenge belated.

The Collector was competent to examine whether the mutation rested on transactions involving Government land, restricted land, or land subject to the protections of Section 165.

The petitioners had received notice, filed a detailed reply, and produced the documents on which they relied; therefore, although the preliminary enquiry report had not separately been supplied, no sufficient prejudice was established, particularly since the conclusions substantially rested on official revenue and settlement records.

However, the Court distinguished between cancelling or correcting a revenue entry and adjudicating the civil validity of a registered instrument.

Section 50 empowered the Collector to examine the legality of the mutation, but not to conclusively determine disputed title or declare the registered sale deeds void.

Any consequences arising from an alleged contravention of Sections 165 or 170-B had to be pursued before the competent statutory authority or Civil Court in accordance with law.

The High Court upheld the Collector’s authority to examine the legality of the mutation and the applicability of the statutory restrictions under Section 165, but held that he had exceeded his jurisdiction by declaring the registered sale deeds dated 16 September 2010 null and void.

The Collector’s order dated 26 November 2012 was therefore set aside to that limited extent, and the Board of Revenue’s order dated 12 March 2015 was modified accordingly.

The competent authority was left free to proceed independently under the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, including Section 170-B where legally attracted, without being influenced by the Court’s observations.