1

CGHC010165812022 2026:CGHC:30325

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 2349 of 2022

Reserved on 07.05.2026

Pronounced on 17. 07.2026

Sheikh Hameed S/o Sheikh Mohammad Yusuf, Aged About 70 Years

R/o Ward No. 15, Near Jila Shahkari Bank, Gariyabandh, Tahsil And

District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Collector, District Gariyabandh (CG)

2 - The Collector District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Tahsildar Gariyaband, District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

4 - Dashoda Bai Wd/o Late Dayaram Patel R/o Village - Kasekera,

Amethi, Post Chhura, District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

5 - Kiran Patel D/o Late Dayaram Patel R/o Village - Kasekera, Amethi,

Post Chhura, District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

2

6 - Pawan Patel S/o Late Dayaram Patel R/o Village - Kasekera,

Amethi, Post Chhura, District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

7 - Meena Patel D/o Late Dayaram Patel R/o Village - Kasekera,

Amethi, Post Chhura, District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 4192 of 2022

Afreen Bano W/o Mohd Wasim Bhai Aged About 32 Years R/o Taaj

Kirana Store Dharamjaigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Revenue and Disaster Management, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,

Naya Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Collector District Gariyaband (C.G.)

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) District Gariyaband (C.G.)

4 - The Tahsildar District - Gariyaband (C.G.)

5 - Bhukhan Lal S/o Shri Bhunu Ram R/o Village Chhindaula, Tahsil

Bindra Nawagarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

WPC No. 2439 of 2022

Mohammed Rizwan S/o Shri Abdul Razzak Memon, Aged About 44

Years R/o Near R.K. Medical, Main Road, Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh)

3

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : Gariyabandh,

Chhattisgarh

2 - The Collector, District Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh

3 - The Tahsildar, Gariyabandh (Chhattisgarh)

4 - Sheikh Hameed S/o Sheikh Mohammad Yusuf, Aged About 70

Years R/o Ward No. 15, Near Jila Shahkari Bank, Gariyabandh, Tahsil

And District Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh

5 - Dashoda Bai, Wd/o Late Dayaram Patel, R/o Village Kasekera,

Amethi, Post Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

6 - Kiran Patel, D/o Late Dayaram Patel, R/o Village Kasekera, Amethi,

Post Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

7 - Pawan Patel, S/o Late Dayaram Patel, R/o Village Kasekera,

Amethi, Post Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

8 - Meena Patel, D/o Late Dayaram Patel, R/o Village Kasekera,

Amethi, Post Chhura, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

For Petitioner(s):Mr. BP Sharma, Mr. Raza Ali, and Mr. Karthik

Kathuria, Advocates

For Respondent/

State

For Respondent

No.4 to 7

:

:

Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. GA

Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf

of Mr. SS Baghel, Advocate

4

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Order

1.Since a common question of law is involved in the captioned

petitions, all three cases have been consolidated, heard

analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.For the sake of convenience, WPC No. 2349/2022 is treated as

the lead case, and the facts of the said petition are being referred

to for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered herein

shall, however, govern the connected writ petitions as well, as the

issues raised therein are identical in nature. In WPC No.

2349/2022 , the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

a. A writ and/or mandamus an order in the

nature of mandamus do issue calling for

records pertaining to case of petitioner for

perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if deem fit.

b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of

mandamus do issue quashing the order

dated 5.5.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by

respondent Collector and in effect restore

name of petitioner in land record as

bhumiswami in respect of the said land and

allow the petitioner to use and enjoy the said

land being bhumiswami in the facts and

circumstances of the case and in the

interest of justice.

5

c. Cost of the proceedings.

d. Any other writs and directions that may be

deemed fit and just in the facts &

circumstances of case.

3.In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is

seeking quashment of the order dated 5.5.2022, whereby the

Collector, Gariyaband observed that the land bearing Khasra

No.147/2 area 0.73 hectare situated at Village Gariyaband,

Patwari Halka No.8, Dongrigaon is recorded in the name of

Sheikh Hameed S/o Mohd. Yusuf (present petitioner) in the

Revenue Records of the Patwari. In the Revenue Survey

pertaining to the year 1987-88 and its corresponding Misal

record, the original Khasra number 147 (new No.97/1)

admeasuring 1.25 hectares, is recorded as grassland.

Subsequently, vide order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the

Additional Collector, Gariyaband in Revenue Case

No.64/A-59/Year1988-89, a portion of Khasra No.147

admeasuring 0.86 hectare, was excluded from the Nistrar Patrak

and was declared to be cultivable land. Consequently, vide order

dated 14.12.2000, the aforesaid land was recorded in the name

of Daya Ram S/o Sagun Marar, Village Dongrigaon on the basis

of a Patta granting Bhumiswami rights. After the death of Daya

Ram, the concerned Gram Panchayat mutated the names of his

legal heirs namely Yashoda, widow of Daya Ram, Minor Kiran,

Minor Pawan and Minor Meena (all respective sons and

6

daughters). The aforesaid Legal Heirs sold the said property to

the present petitioner i.e. Sheikh Hamid and thereafter, his name

was mutated in the revenue records. The Tehsildar, Gariyaband

registered a case and issued a notice to the petitioner stating that

the transaction was in contravention of Section 158(3) and 165(7-

b) of the CG Land Revenue Code (in short “the Code”). As such,

it was recommended that the sale be declared null and void due

to the violation of the aforesaid provisions of the Code, as no prior

permission was obtained from the Collector before sale of the

land under Section 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Code. On the basis

of the aforesaid report submitted by the concerned Tehsildar, the

SDO (R ), Gariyaband proposed the initiation of proceedings for

violation of Section 158(3) and Section 165 (7-b) of the Code. The

concerned Collector on the basis of the aforesaid reports

submitted by the concerned Tehsildar and the concerned

SDO(R), considered the matter and found that Daya Ram was

granted Patta in respect of a part of the land bearing Khasra

No.147, admeasuring 0.86 hectares. Later on, vide order dated

14.12.2000, the name of Daya Ram was mutated in the revenue

records. As such, the land was granted by the State on lease

(Patta), which could not be sold otherwise unless and until prior

permission, as required under Section 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the

Code, was obtained from the concerned Collector. Notice was

issued to the seller as well as purchaser. The seller, despite

notice, did not appear before the Court. However, the purchaser

entered appearance and stated that since the subject Patta was

7

granted to Daya Ram 10 years prior to the transaction, full

Bhumiswami rights accrued to him upon expiration of the

statutory period of 10 years. As such, no permission as envisaged

under Sections 158(3) and 165 (7-b) of the Code was required to

be obtained from the concerned Collector and therefore, the

transaction is free from any illegality. Even otherwise, a registered

sale-deed cannot be declared null and void by the revenue

authorities except in the matters falling under Section 170-B of

the Code. After hearing the parties, the concerned Collector held

that even if Bhumiswami rights had been conferred upon the

leaseholder, since the land was originally granted on lease by the

State Government, prior permission under Section 158(3) and

165(7-b) of the Code is mandatorily required to be obtained from

the concerned Collector before selling any part thereof. Since no

such permission was obtained by the seller, the sale-deed dated

12.12.2012 executed in favour of the petitioner is non-est in the

eyes of law. Accordingly, the concerned Collector held that in the

absence of the prior permission required under Section 158(3)

and 165(7-b) of the Code, the sale-deed executed in favour of the

petitioner is null and void and ultimately directed that the land be

recorded in the name of the State Government. Hence, this

Petition.

4.Mr B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the Revenue Court has illegally entertained the matter, which falls

exclusively within the domain and jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

He submits that the concerned Collector has usurped the powers

8

of a Civil Court, which is impermissible under the law, as a

registered sale-deed cannot be declared as null and void by the

revenue authority while exercising its revenue jurisdiction. Any

such declaration can only be granted by a competent Civil Court.

He further argues that once Bhumiswami rights have

automatically accrued upon the expiration of 10 years, the

requirement to obtain prior permission from the Collector stands

dispensed with. In view of the above, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the

Collector is per se illegal and liable to be quashed.

5.On the other hand, Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel for the

State submits that the impugned order is in consonance with the

provisions enumerated under Sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the

Code. If the land has been granted on lease by the State at any

point of time, prior permission under the aforementioned sections

must be obtained from the concerned Collector before executing

any sale thereof. In the absence of such permission, any

subsequent sale deed is illegal and the same has rightly been

held to be null and void by the concerned Collector.

Furthermore, since a sale-deed executed in violation of these

statutory provisions is non-est in the eyes of law, it can be

declared null and void by any Court, including the Revenue

Courts. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned

order, the Petition is bereft of any merit and is liable to be

dismissed.

6.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also

9

perused the documents annexed with the petition.

7.In order to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, the core

legal questions that arise for consideration before this Court are

as follows:-

1. Whether the land in question was originally

granted on lease by the concerned revenue

authorities ?

2. Whether the land granted by the State

Government under a lease (Patta) can be

sold without obtaining prior permission under

Section 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Code?

3. Whether the transaction and subsequent

sale-deed executed in respect of such

leasehold (Patta) without obtaining the

necessary permission are rendered null and

void?

4. Whether the Revenue Court possesses the

requisite power, authority and jurisdiction to

declare any registered sale-deed null and

void?

Question No.1:

8.In this regard, it is evident that vide order dated 28.4.2000 passed

by the Additional Collector, Gariyaband, a portion of Khasra

No.147 admeasuring 0.86 hectare, was excluded from the Nistrar

Patrak and was declared to be cultivable land. Subsequently, vide

order dated 14.12.2000, the aforesaid land was recorded in the

name of Daya Ram as a Government Lessee holding

Bhoomiswami Rights. The sale deed executed in favour of the

10

petitioners shows that except the aforesaid subject land, all

adjoining parcels recorded in the revenue records comprise

government grassland. The subject land alone was originally

granted on lease to late Daya Ram, upon whom, Bhumiswami

rights subsequently accrued by operation of law.

Question No.2 & Question No.3:

9.In order to appreciate the point raised, it would be profitable to

refer Section 158(3) and Section 165(7-b) of the Code, which

read as under :

158(3). Bhumiswami-

(3) Every person-

(i)who is holding land in Bhoomiswami right by virtue of

a lease granted to him by the State Government or the

Collector or the Allotment Officer on or before the

commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue

Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such

commencement, and

(ii) to whom land is allotted in Bhoomiswami right by

the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment

Officer after the commencement of the Madhya

Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992

from the date of such allotment,

shall be deemed to be a Bhoomiswami in respect of

such land and shall be subject to all the rights and

liabilities conferred and imposed upon a Bhoomiswami

by or under this Code :

Provided that no such person shall transfer such land

within a period of ten years from the date of lease or

allotment.

11

165. Rights of transfer.

(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

(1), a person [or his/ or her legal heir] who holds land

from the State Government or a person [or his/ or her

legal heir] who holds land in Bhoomiswami rights under

sub-section (3) of Section 158 or whom right to occupy

land is granted by the State Government or the

Collector as a Government lessee and who

subsequently becomes Bhoomiswami of such land,

shall not transfer such land without the permission of a

Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Collector,

given for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Provided that a permission mentioned in this sub-

section shall not be needed to a Bhoomiswami or

his/her legal heir holding Bhoomiswami Right Certificate

under sub-section (4) or Free-hold Right under the sub-

section (5) of Section 158, for the transfer of that land.

10. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly

clear that once land has its origin in a government lease

irrespective of whether Bhoomiswami or any other nature of rights

are subsequently accrued, it retains its character as leased land.

Hence, any subsequent transfer or transaction involving such

land can be executed only after obtaining prior permission from

the concerned Collector under Section 165(7-b) of the Code. Any

violation of the aforesaid provisions would be fatal to the

transaction, which would render the executed sale-deed illegal. In

this regard, it is settled position of law through various judgments

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court

as well as this Court, that any transfer executed without obtaining

such prior permission is null and void.

12

11.In view of the above, Question No.2 & Question No. 3 are

answered accordingly.

Question No.4 :

12.Now, the next important aspect for consideration is whether the

Revenue Courts possess the power and authority to declare a

registered sale-deed null and void. It is a trite position of law that

the power to grant a declaration setting aside the registered sale

deed vests exclusively within the domain of the Civil Courts. Such

jurisdiction does not vest in the Revenue Courts, which do not

possess the competence to set-aside or cancel a registered

instrument of transfer.

13.Section 54 of the Transfer of Properties Act, defines “Sale” and

mandates its execution through a registered document. The

statutory power to adjudicate upon the validity of such a

registered sale-deed belongs solely to the Civil Courts. This

inherent judicial power cannot be taken over by the Revenue

Courts for the purpose of declaring a registered sale deed null

and void.

14.Furthermore, under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, the

power to adjudicate upon and declare a sale-deed null and void

vests exclusively with the Civil Court and no such jurisdiction is

conferred upon the Revenue Court. It would be apposite to

reproduce Section 31 of the said Act here :

13

31. When cancellation may be ordered.—

(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is

void or voidable, and who has reasonable

apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding

may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it

adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its

discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up

and cancelled.

(2)If the instrument has been registered under the

Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court

shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in

whose office the instrument has been so registered;

and such officer shall note on the copy of the

instrument contained in his books the fact of its

cancellation.

15.Consequently, in view of the aforesaid provisions, even in cases

involving alleged statutory violation, this exclusive civil jurisdiction

cannot be usurped by the revenue authorities. Even if it is

assumed that the sale-deed was executed without prior

permission under Section 165(7-b) of the Code, the Revenue

Court is still incompetent to declare the registered sale deed null

and void. Such an outright declaration of nullity by the revenue

authority is not in accordance with law.

16.In light of the foregoing, Question No.4 is answered accordingly.

17.Furthermore, in the matter of Asset of Reconstruction

Company (India) Limited Vs. S.P. Velayutham reported in

(2022) 8 SCC 210, the following was held in para 53, 54, 57, 58

& 59 :

53. Actually, the registration of a document comprises of

14

three essential steps among others. They are:

(i) execution of the document, by the executant signing

or affixing his left hand thumb impression;

(ii) presenting the document for registration and

admitting to the registering authority the execution of

such document; and

(iii) the act of registration of the document.

54. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without

the relief of declaration that the registered document is

null and void, what gets challenged, is a combination

of all the aforesaid three steps in the process of

execution and registration. The first of the aforesaid

three steps may be challenged in a suit for declaration

that the registered document is null and void, either on

the ground that the executant did not have a valid title

to pass on or on the ground that what was found in the

document was not the signature of the executant or on

the ground that the signature of the executant was

obtained by fraud, coercion, etc. The second step of

presentation of the document and admitting the

execution of the same, may also be challenged on the

very same grounds hereinabove stated. Such objections

to the first and second of the aforesaid three steps are

substantial and they strike at the very root of creation

of the document. A challenge to the very execution of a

document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect

or illegality on the execution, is congenital in nature.

Therefore, such a challenge, by its very nature, has to

be made only before the civil court and certainly not

before the writ court.

15

57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for

declaration that a registered document is null and void,

all the aforesaid three steps which comprise the entire

process of execution and registration come under

challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a

document or the right and title of a person to execute a

document and present it for registration, his remedy

will only be to go to the civil court. But where a party

questions only the failure of the registering authority to

perform his statutory duties in the course of the third

step, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High

Court under Article 226 stands completely ousted. This

is for the reason that the writ jurisdiction of the High

Court is to ensure that statutory authorities perform

their duties within the bounds of law.

58. It must be noted that when a High Court, in exercise

of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds that there was

utter failure on the part of the registering authority to

stick to the mandate of law, the Court merely cancels

the act of registration, but does not declare the very

execution of the document to be null and void. A

declaration that a document is null and void, is

exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it

does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the

question whether or not the registering authority

performed his statutory duties in the manner

prescribed by law.

59. It is well settled that if something is required by law

to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done only

in that manner and not otherwise. Examining whether

the registering authority did something in the manner

16

required by law or otherwise, is certainly within the

jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

However, it is needless to say that the High Courts may

refuse to exercise jurisdiction in cases where the

violations of procedure on the part of the registering

authority are not gross or the violations do not shock

the conscience of the Court. Lack of jurisdiction is

completely different from a refusal to exercise

jurisdiction.

18.Reverting to the facts of the present case, considering the facts

and circumstances of the case and also in light of the principles

laid down in the aforesaid judgment, as well as the discussion in

the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the

concerned revenue authority exceeded its jurisdiction by

declaring the sale deed null and void. Such a determination falls

exclusively within the domain of the competent Civil Court.

19.In view of the above, the impugned orders (in all the writ

petitions), to the extent that it declares the subject sale deed(s)

null and void, are unsustainable and are hereby set-aside. As

regards the remaining part of the impugned orders, without

entering into the merits of the case, liberty is reserved in favour

of the State Government to seek appropriate recourse and

remedies before a competent Civil Court in accordance with law.

20.With the observations/directions, all the Writ Petitions are

disposed of. Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Shyna Ajay