Third Party Affected by Mutation of Public Land May File Objection Under Land Revenue Code

The Petitioner, Gram Panchayat Palandur, challenged an order dated 13/04/2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (R) (SDO), Dongargarh.

The SDO had rejected the Petitioner’s appeal against a Tehsildar’s order on the grounds that the Sarpanch was not a party to the initial proceedings and was a "third party," making the appeal non-maintainable.

The Tehsildar had previously mutated the names of private respondents (Respondents 1-18) in the revenue records as owners of a pond located in Village Palandur.

The Petitioner contended that the pond is a Nistari pond meant for public use and that the revenue entries were made illegally.

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat before the SDO was maintainable despite the Petitioner not being a party to the original Tehsildar proceedings.

2. Whether the Petitioner has the right to challenge the mutation of names in revenue records regarding a pond claimed to be for Nistari (common village use) purposes.

The Court referred to the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (the "Code"). Specifically, it identified Section 248 of the Code, which deals with the penalty for unauthorizedly taking possession of land (often used to address encroachments or improper entries regarding communal land).

The Court also highlighted Section 237 of the Code, which provides for the reservation of land for special purposes, including Nistari rights and village common use.

The Court noted the gravity of the dispute, as it involves a pond intended for Nistari rights—essential communal water rights for villagers.

While the State argued that the Petitioner failed to participate in the Tehsildar's proceedings and thus could not appeal directly to the SDO, the Court found it necessary to provide a procedural remedy rather than dismissing the claim on technicalities.

The Court reasoned that since the Tehsildar had entered private names into the records for what is alleged to be public land, the Gram Panchayat must be heard.

It determined that the proper course of action was to permit the Petitioner to invoke the specific statutory remedies under Section 248 and Section 237 of the Code to assert the community’s rights and challenge the mutation orders.

The Tehsildar is directed to decide the matter on its own merits, affording a hearing to both the Panchayat and the private respondents, uninfluenced by previous orders. Additionally, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to apply to the Collector under Section 237 of the Code for obtaining/restoring Nistari rights over the land.