1

CGHC010163712015 2026:CGHC:40240

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Order reserved on 18-08-2026

Order passed on 15-09-2026

WP227 No. 560 of 2015

1 - Sanjeev Sharma S/o. Shivraj Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, Deputy General

Manager, M/s. Bhaskarpara Coal Company Limited, Crystal Tower, First Floor

G.E.Road Telibandha, Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

Chhattisgarh

2 - Jatin Bhavsar S/o. Devendra Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Anand Nagar,

Manendragarh Road, Police Station and Post Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue District

Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

... Petitioners

versus

1 - Gaya Prasad S/o. Vishvanath, R/o. Village Baijnathpur (Sahanpur), Tahsil

Batauli, Civil and Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - Balgovind S/o. Shri Sobhnath, R/o. Village Baijnathpur (Sahanpur), Tahsil

Batauli, Civil and Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja

Chhattisgarh

3 - Satyanarayan S/o. Shri Sobhnath, R/o. Village Baijnathpur (Sahanpur), Tahsil

Batauli, Civil and Revenue District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja

Chhattisgarh

2

4 - Jagdish S/o. Late Rampati R/o. Sahanpur, Tahsil Sitapur, Civil and Revenue

District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh

5 - Nandlal S/o. Late Rampati R/o. Sahanpur, Tahsil Sitapur, Civil and Revenue

District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh

6 - Bechau S/o Rambaras R/o. Sahanpur, Tahsil Seetapur, Civil and Revenue

District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh

7 - Roopnarayan S/o. Gangaram R/o. Sahanpur, Tahsil Seetapur, Civil and Revenue

District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh

8 - Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh

9 - Tahsildar, Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Ms.

Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 to

3

:Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Uttara

Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State/Respondents

No.8 and 9

:Mr. Avinash Singh, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

C A V Order

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners questioning

the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure P-

1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Revision Case

No. RN/R/16/A-6/505/2012, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners

against the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Collector, Surguja, Place

Ambikapur, has been dismissed.

3

2. The case of the petitioners, in substance, is that M/s. Bhaskarpara Coal

Company Limited, a joint venture of M/s. Electrotherm (I) Limited and M/s.

UltraTech Cement Limited, was established for excavation of coal from the

Bhaskarpara Coal Block situated in Bhaiyathan Tehsil, District Surguja, which

was allocated by the Ministry of Coal vide allocation letter dated 21.11.2008.

Since approximately 515 hectares of the allotted coal block comprised forest

land, the petitioners were required, for diversion of such forest land, to

provide equivalent land for compensatory afforestation and accordingly

purchased agricultural/revenue lands from Gaya Prasad, Balgovind and

Satyanarayan. Pursuant thereto, two registered sale-deeds were executed

on 16.09.2010 through their power of attorney holder, Vijayshankar Soni.

Under the first sale-deed, land bearing Khasra Nos. 127 (0.559 Hect.), 129

(1.052 Hect.), 133 (0.773 Hect.), 141 (1.044 Hect.) and 144 (0.802 Hect.),

total 5.934 hectares, was conveyed to the petitioners, whereas under the

second sale-deed, land bearing Khasra Nos. 77, 83, 85, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94,

95, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116,

117, 119, 120, 122, 132, 145 and 146, admeasuring in all 30.936 hectares,

situated at Village Baijnathpur (Sahanpur), Batauli, District Surguja, was

purchased. Subsequently, upon receipt of a show-cause notice and on the

petitioners coming to know that certain portions of the purchased land were

allegedly forest land, a correction deed dated 25.08.2012 was executed in

respect of Khasra Nos. 93, 109, 119 and 145, admeasuring 10.04 hectares,

whereby the said land was surrendered and deleted from the sale

transaction. Thus, out of the total 36.87 hectares involved in the proceedings

initiated by the Collector, the actual dispute remained confined to 15.512

hectares, out of which 10.04 hectares had already been surrendered, leaving

a dispute concerning only 5.472 hectares.

3. With regard to the remaining 5.472 hectares of land, the petitioners' specific

case is that Khasra Nos. 114, 141 and 144, admeasuring 1.919 hectares,

4

were wrongly treated as Jhadi Jangal/Manwar Gautiya land. Khasra No.114,

admeasuring 0.073 hectare, was recorded in the revenue records of 1958 in

the name of Sunder, son of Bhadar, and thereafter devolved upon his

surviving legal heirs. As regards Khasra Nos. 141 and 144, admeasuring

1.846 hectares, though alleged to be Government/Manwar Gautiya land, the

said land was recorded in the Wazib-ul-arz of the Surguja State Settlement,

1939, and was subsequently settled in favour of Manwar Gautiya and

thereafter recorded in the names of Gaya, son of Vishwanath, and Sobhnath,

son of Bhadar. The revenue records of 1958, particularly Entry No. 8, Khata

No. 19, recorded the said persons on the basis of Bakshishnama and

recognized their possession. Such decades-old revenue entries could not

have been disturbed by exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction after more

than five decades. The petitioner’s further case is that Khasra Nos. 141 and

144 were neither Nazul land nor lease land allotted by the Government and,

therefore, no permission of the Collector was required for their transfer;

alternatively, by virtue of Section 158 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue

Code, 1959, the persons continuously possessing the land recorded in

Wazib-ul-arz and continuing in possession after commencement of the Code

had acquired the status of Bhumiswami. In respect of the remaining Khasra

Nos. 120 (1.979 Hect.), 122 (0.247 Hect.) and 132 (1.327 Hect.), total 3.553

hectares, which were alleged to be Pahadi Korwa land, the petitioners rely

upon mutation record No. 14 dated 24.05.1967, contending that although the

land was originally recorded in the names of Durjan Korwa and Preetam

Korwa, Durjan Korwa had been absconding since 1940 and, after his

presumed civil death, the land was recorded in the name of Sobhnath, who

was in possession and paying land revenue/jamabandi, and thereafter,

following his death, in the name of Satyanarayan. These material revenue

records of 1958 and 1967 were ignored by the authorities.

5

4. The petitioners further pleaded that pursuant to the registered sale-deeds,

possession of the disputed lands was delivered to the petitioners and their

name was duly mutated in the revenue records on 15.11.2010, where it

continued to be recorded as owner; the registered sale-deeds themselves

had never been annulled or set aside by any competent civil court and

remained subsisting. On certain complaints regarding the two sale-deeds, the

Tahsildar, Batauli, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report dated

12.07.2012 to the Collector, Surguja, without issuing notice to or affording

any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without supplying a copy of

the enquiry report. On the basis thereof, the Collector, Surguja, initiated suo

motu revisional proceedings and issued a show-cause notice to the

petitioners. The petitioners submitted a detailed reply along with the relevant

revenue records and documents, specifically raising the objection that

revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised after an inordinate lapse of

several decades. However, by order dated 26.11.2012, the Collector nullified

the effect of the registered sale-deeds without properly considering the old

revenue records, the petitioners' reply, or the limitation/laches attached to the

exercise of suo motu revisional powers, and further acted beyond his

jurisdiction by effectively declaring registered sale-deeds void.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Board of

Revenue, raising all factual and legal grounds and producing the relevant

documents. The Board of Revenue, vide order dated 12.03.2015, dismissed

the revision and affirmed the Collector's order dated 26.11.2012. The present

petition consequently assails both the orders of the Collector and the Board

of Revenue as being illegal, erroneous, contrary to the revenue records and

passed in excess of jurisdiction, particularly on the grounds of impermissible

exercise of suo motu revisional power after an extraordinary delay and the

alleged absence of jurisdiction in the revenue authorities to annul or declare

void the registered sale-deeds.

6

6. The Respondent Nos. 8 and 9/State authorities submitted their return and

denied the claim of the petitioners. In return, it would submit that the

impugned orders passed by the Collector and affirmed by the Board of

Revenue do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of the

principles of natural justice. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of

the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Batauli, in respect of the disputed

transactions and the revenue status of the lands in question. The petitioners

were thereafter issued a show-cause notice by the Collector and were

afforded full opportunity to submit their explanation and produce relevant

documents. The petitioner duly submitted its reply and participated in the

proceedings; therefore, the contention that the order was passed behind the

back of the petitioners or without affording an opportunity of hearing is

misconceived. The mere fact that the Tahsildar's preliminary enquiry report

was not separately furnished to the petitioners does not vitiate the

proceedings, particularly when the petitioners were given an opportunity to

contest the allegations and place all relevant revenue records before the

competent authority.

7. It is further the stand of the State that the Collector, upon examination of the

revenue records and the material available on record, rightly found

irregularities concerning the nature and status of the lands covered by the

registered sale-deeds, including the lands alleged to be forest/Jhadi Jangal,

Manwar Gautiya and Pahadi Korwa/tribal lands. The execution of a

registered sale-deed or subsequent mutation in favour of the petitioners,

does not confer an indefeasible title if the transfer itself was contrary to the

revenue law or involved Government, forest or restricted tribal land. The

petitioners cannot derive any advantage merely from the passage of time or

from the mutation entries, particularly when the legality of the subject

transactions was subsequently brought to the notice of the revenue

authorities. It is also submitted that the correction deed relating to 10.04

7

hectares of land does not conclude the entire controversy, as the remaining

5.472 hectares of land continued to be disputed. The Collector, therefore,

was justified in examining the legality of the transactions in exercise of his

revisional powers, and the Board of Revenue, after considering the grounds

raised by the petitioners, rightly affirmed the findings of the Collector.

Consequently, the State supports the impugned orders and submits that the

writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

8. After hearing the parties, the Collector, upon consideration of the enquiry

report submitted by the Tahsildar, the relevant revenue records and the

proceedings in the connected mutation case, recorded a finding that the

lands covered by the two registered sale-deeds dated 16.09.2010 comprised

different categories of land which were not legally transferable in the manner

adopted by the vendors. In particular, Khasra Nos. 93, 109, 119 and 145,

admeasuring 10.04 hectares, were recorded as Government land under

the “Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle” category, and had never been recorded in the

Bhumiswami or leasehold rights of the vendors. Khasra Nos. 114, 141 and

144 were found to have been recorded as Jhadi Jangal/Gautiya land and,

according to the Collector, being land originally obtained from the

Government, its transfer required prior permission under Section 165(7-b) of

the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which admittedly had not been

obtained. Likewise, Khasra Nos. 120, 122 and 132, admeasuring 3.553

hectares, were found in the settlement and rights records to have originally

stood in the names of persons belonging to the Pahadi Korwa Scheduled

Tribe. The Collector held that the subsequent mutation of the said lands in

favour of the vendors on the basis of possession did not constitute a lawful

transfer from the Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Section 165(6) of the

Code, 1959, particularly in the absence of the requisite permission of the

competent authority. The Collector also noticed that the petitioners' own reply

acknowledged the old entries and relied upon the mutation records of 1958

8

and 1967, but those entries did not establish a lawful and transferable

Bhumiswami title so as to defeat the restrictions contained in Section 165 of

the Code, 1959.

9. The Collector further found that the subsequent execution of the correction

deed dated 25.08.2012, deleting Khasra Nos. 93, 109, 119 and 145 from the

sale-deeds, did not cure the illegality in respect of the other disputed lands or

retrospectively validate the original transactions. He also took note of the

circumstances emerging from the enquiry, including the alleged irregularities

in the preparation of the partition documents, the revenue entries and the

mutation proceedings, and the role attributed to the concerned revenue

officials. On such consideration, the Collector concluded that the sale

transactions dated 16.09.2010, insofar as they related to the

Government/Jhadi Jangal land, the land requiring prior permission under

Section 165(7-b), and the Pahadi Korwa land covered by Section 165(6),

were in contravention of the statutory restrictions and, therefore, could not

lawfully operate to confer title upon the purchaser. Consequently, exercising

revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code, 1959, the Collector

cancelled the mutation order dated 15.11.2010 passed under Section 110 of

the Code, 1959, in favour of the purchaser and directed restoration of the

revenue entries to their position existing before the mutation. The Collector

further directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the vendors, their

power-of-attorney holder, the attesting witnesses and the purchaser's

representative, alleging their involvement in the illegal transfer of

Government and restricted lands, and also noted that departmental

proceedings had separately been instituted against the concerned revenue

officials.

10.In the revision filed by the petitioners, the Board of Revenue, upon

consideration of the records of the subordinate proceedings, the enquiry

report of the Tahsildar, the relevant revenue records and the submissions

9

advanced by both sides, held that the disputed lands fell into three distinct

categories, namely, (i) Khasra Nos. 93, 109, 119 and 145, admeasuring

10.04 hectares, recorded as Government land under the “Chhote Jhad Ka

Jungle” category; (ii) Khasra Nos. 114, 141 and 144, which had earlier been

recorded under the Jhari Jungle/Gautiyai category and, it could not have

been transferred without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector under

Section 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959; and (iii)

Khasra Nos. 120, 122 and 132, admeasuring 3.553 hectares, which were

originally recorded as land belonging to members of the Pahadi Korwa

Scheduled Tribe and were subsequently transferred in favour of non-tribal

persons without compliance with the restrictions contained in Section 165(6)

of the Code. The Board of Revenue further held that the execution of the

correction deed dated 25.08.2012 in respect of 10.04 hectares did not cure

the illegality relating to the remaining disputed lands. It accordingly found that

the vendors had unlawfully represented the disputed lands as their own and

transferred them to the purchaser under the registered sale-deeds dated

16.09.2010, and that the subsequent mutation in favour of the purchaser was

also liable to be cancelled. Finding no substantial ground warranting

interference with the Collector's order dated 26.11.2012, the Board of

Revenue held the revision petition to be devoid of merit, affirmed the

cancellation of mutation and restoration of the earlier revenue entries, as well

as the directions for appropriate action against the persons found

responsible, and consequently dismissed the revision petition.

11.Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners,

would submit that the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the

Collector, Surguja, is vitiated by jurisdictional as well as procedural errors.

The Collector, Surguja, initiated suo motu revisional proceedings on the basis

of the enquiry report dated 12.07.2012 submitted by the Tahsildar, Batauli in

Revenue Case No. 702/B-121/2010-11, although the said enquiry had not

10

been duly authorised by the Collector. The petitioners were neither

associated with the said enquiry nor was the enquiry report supplied to them

before it was relied upon by the Collector. It is further submitted that the

Collector proceeded based on unverified oral assertions regarding alleged

forged signatures, the death of one of the co-sharers and irregularities in the

Gram Panchayat partition proceedings, without summoning the Sarpanch,

Secretary, concerned witnesses, death certificate or other relevant

documents. Thus, the findings recorded against the petitioners were founded

upon an enquiry conducted behind their back, without affording them an

effective opportunity to controvert the material relied upon by the Collector,

resulting in a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

12.It is further submitted that the Collector has failed to properly appreciate the

old revenue records produced by the petitioners. In respect of Khasra Nos.

141 and 144, the petitioners relied upon the Wajib-ul-arz and the revenue

entries of 1958 to demonstrate that the land had been settled in the names of

Sobhnath and Gaya and was thereafter recorded in the names of their legal

heirs, and that the same was not Government-granted land so as to attract

the requirement of prior permission under Section 165(7-b) of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Similarly, with respect to Khasra

Nos. 120, 122 and 132, the petitioners relied upon Mutation Entry No. 14

dated 24.05.1967, pursuant to which the land was recorded in the name of

Sobhnath on the basis of the circumstances and possession recorded therein

and, after his death, came to be recorded in the name of Satyanarayan.

These material documents were specifically placed before the Collector but

were not properly considered. It is also submitted that the land admeasuring

10.04 hectares, alleged to be Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle, had already been

excluded from the sale transaction by a registered correction deed dated

25.08.2012, before the passing of the impugned order. The petitioners are

bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, having acted upon the

11

revenue records supplied by the competent authorities, paid the entire

consideration and requisite registration charges, and having purchased the

land with the intention of ultimately transferring it to the Forest Department for

compensatory afforestation. Any error or incorrect entry committed by the

revenue authorities could not, in the absence of proof of collusion or

knowledge, be attributed to the petitioners.

13.He would next submit that the Collector travelled wholly beyond the scope of

his revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code in declaring the

registered sale-deeds dated 16.09.2010 to be ineffective and void. The

Collector could, at the highest, examine the legality of the mutation

proceedings, but could not adjudicate upon disputed questions of title and

nullify registered instruments, particularly when a civil suit concerning the

rights of the parties was already pending before the competent Civil Court. It

is further contended that the Collector failed to appreciate that revisional

jurisdiction, even where no specific period of limitation is prescribed, must be

exercised within a reasonable period and cannot be invoked so as to unsettle

long-standing revenue entries and rights without cogent justification. The

impugned order is also assailed on the ground that an adverse order was

passed against a deceased person, namely, Ram Pati, without bringing his

legal representatives on record, and that directions for lodging an FIR against

the vendors, purchaser, power-of-attorney holder and witnesses, as well as

for initiating departmental proceedings against revenue officials, were issued

without a proper and complete adjudication of the underlying facts. The

Board of Revenue failed to independently examine these jurisdictional,

evidentiary and natural justice objections and mechanically affirmed the

Collector's order. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated

26.11.2012 passed by the Collector, Surguja and the order dated 12.03.2015,

passed by the Board of Revenue be set aside.

12

14.Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 8 and

9/State, would oppose and submit that the impugned order dated 26.11.2012

passed by the Collector, Surguja, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error

or violation of the principles of natural justice. The Collector initiated the

proceedings on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Batauli,

and thereafter issued due notice to the concerned parties and afforded them

adequate opportunity to submit their replies and documents. The petitioners

participated in the proceedings and placed their case before the Collector;

therefore, merely because the preliminary enquiry report was not separately

furnished to them, the entire proceedings cannot be vitiated, particularly

when no specific prejudice caused to the petitioners has been demonstrated.

It is further submitted that the Collector, after examining the relevant revenue

records and the material collected during enquiry, found that several parcels

of land forming part of the sale transactions were Government land, Chhote

Jhad Ka Jungle, Manwar Gautiya land and land originally recorded in the

names of members of the Pahadi Korwa Scheduled Tribe. The subsequent

correction deed in respect of 10.04 hectares did not cure the illegality

concerning the remaining disputed lands, and the restrictions contained in

Section 165(6) and Section 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue

Code, 1959 were admittedly required to be complied with before effecting

such transfers.

15.It would further be submitted that the petitioners cannot claim any

indefeasible right merely on the basis of registered sale-deeds or subsequent

mutation entries when the vendors themselves had no transferable title or

when the statutory restrictions on transfer were attracted. The Collector was

competent, while examining the legality of the mutation proceedings in

exercise of powers under Section 50 of the Code, to examine whether the

mutation was founded upon a legally permissible transaction and to restore

the lawful revenue entries. The findings regarding the nature and

13

transferability of the land were based upon the settlement records and other

official revenue documents and were subsequently examined and affirmed by

the Board of Revenue. The plea regarding delay is also misconceived, as the

proceedings related to the legality of the mutation and sale transactions of

the year 2010 and were initiated upon detection of the irregularities during

the enquiry in 2012. The State counsel would therefore submit that no

prejudice or failure of justice has been demonstrated by the petitioners, and

the disputed questions concerning title and validity of the subject transactions

cannot be used to invoke the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

The Board of Revenue, having duly considered the material on record and

affirmed the reasoned order of the Collector, the writ petition deserves to be

dismissed.

16.Ms. Seema Verma, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would

supported the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue and submit

that the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue affirming

the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Collector, Surguja, is well

reasoned, based upon the relevant revenue records and material available

on record, and does not suffer from any jurisdictional or legal infirmity

warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The

Collector, upon enquiry into the irregularities relating to the subject lands and

after affording due opportunity to the concerned parties, rightly found that

various parcels of land included in the registered sale-deeds dated

16.09.2010 were Government land/ Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle ,

restricted Manwar Gautiya land and land originally belonging to members of

the Scheduled Tribe, which could not have been validly transferred in the

manner in which the transactions were effected. The subsequent correction

deed in respect of the forest land did not validate the other disputed

transfers, nor could the petitioners derive any lawful title merely on the basis

of mutation entries or registered instruments when the underlying

14

transactions were contrary to the statutory restrictions contained in the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Board of Revenue has duly

considered the grounds raised by the petitioners and, finding no illegality in

the Collector's order, rightly dismissed the revision. It is, therefore, submitted

that the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities do not

warrant interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and

the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

17.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through their pleadings,

and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

18.The main question which arises for consideration in the present petition is

whether the Collector was justified in exercising suo motu revisional

jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959,

on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar and, upon such

exercise, in cancelling the mutation in favour of the petitioners in respect of

the lands covered by the registered sale-deeds dated 16.09.2010. It is not in

dispute that the sale-deeds were executed on 16.09.2010 and that, pursuant

thereto, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records on

15.11.2010. The Tahsildar submitted his enquiry report on 12.07.2012, and

the Collector thereafter initiated the proceedings. Thus, insofar as the

mutation order dated 15.11.2010 is concerned, the revisional proceedings

were initiated within about two years. Section 50 of the Code does not

prescribe a specific period of limitation for exercise of suo motu revisional

power.

19.However, the submission of the petitioners that the impugned revisional

proceedings are liable to be annulled merely on the ground of delay does not

appear to be acceptable on the facts of the present case. The proceedings

before the Collector were not initiated after an unexplained lapse of several

decades from the mutation order; rather, the enquiry was conducted in the

year 2012, and the Collector proceeded on the basis of the alleged

15

irregularities noticed in the revenue records and the transactions of 2010.

The fact that the revenue records relied upon by the petitioners relate to the

years 1958 and 1967 cannot, by itself, make the revisional proceedings

belated, since what was subjected to scrutiny was the subsequent mutation

and the legality of the transactions giving rise thereto. The coordinate bench

of this Court, while considering the scope of Section 50 in Sree Kalp Agri

Farm Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(C) No. 4053 of 2023, decided

on 20.10.2023, has reiterated that the question of reasonable time depends

upon the facts of each case and has upheld exercise of revisional jurisdiction

where the proceedings were initiated soon after the alleged illegality was

brought to the notice of the Collector. It has been considered in the case of

Sree Kalp Agri Farm Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that:-

“13.In case of Mulayam Singh & Ors. Vs. Budhuwa Chamar &

Ors, reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ 480, Division Bench of High

Court of Madhya Pradesh has considered “the reasonable time”

for exercising the power under Section 50 of the Code of 1959

and observed thus :-

“6. So far as the question of invoking suo motu power in

revision by the Additional Collector under Section 50 of

the Code is concerned, in our opinion, this power has

rightly been exercised by the Additional Collector. The

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Murari Lal and

Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1994 MPLJ 378) has held

in para 10 that :--

"It has been, in the last, argued for the petitioners

that though no time limit has been prescribed for

exercising suo motu powers of revision, yet they

should be exercised within a reasonable time. For

the said preposition in State of Gujarat v. Patel

16

Raghu Natha (AIR 1969 SC at page 1297), has

been cited for the petitioners. In this regard, it has to

be seen that it is a cardinal principle of law of

limitation that prescribed period (if any) of limitation

starts running from the date of acquiring the

knowledge of the relevant fact giving rise to the

cause of action. In the present case, the relevant

lands were recorded in the name of a deity. The

Collector started proceedings as soon as the fact of

alleged mutation in the names of the petitioners

were brought to his notice. Taking action "within a

reasonable time" is a relative term. In the facts and

circumstances of the present case, action was taken

within a reasonable time."

What would be the reasonable time would depend upon

the facts of each particular case. In the present case as

soon as this fact was brought into his notice, the

Additional Collector has rightly exercised the jurisdiction

under Section 50 of the Code to set aside the mutation

based on a transaction contrary to the provisions of

Section 165 (7-B) of the Code. In the circumstances, it

cannot be said that the jurisdiction was exercised beyond

reasonable time…...”

20.As regards the nature of the disputed lands, the Collector has recorded

findings on the basis of the revenue and settlement records that different

parcels comprised in the sale-deeds fell within distinct categories,

namely, Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle, Manwar Gautiya and land originally

recorded in the names of members of the Pahadi Korwa Scheduled Tribe. In

respect of Khasra Nos. 93, 109, 119 and 145, admeasuring 10.04 hectares,

17

the petitioners themselves executed the registered correction deed dated

25.08.2012 and excluded the said lands from the original transaction. Such

correction deed, however, could not by itself validate the remaining

transactions if those lands were independently found to be subject to

statutory restrictions. Likewise, in respect of Khasra Nos. 114, 141 and 144

and Khasra Nos. 120, 122 and 132, the Collector and the Board of Revenue

have relied upon the settlement and revenue records and held that the nature

of the land attracted the restrictions contained in Section 165 of the Code,

1959. The petitioners rely upon the Wajib-ul-arz, the entries of 1958 and

Mutation Entry No.14 dated 24.05.1967 to establish a lawful and heritable

right in their vendors. These documents undoubtedly required consideration;

however, the mere existence of old revenue entries does not, by itself,

establish an unrestricted and transferable title contrary to the statutory

restrictions governing the transfer of particular categories of land. The

mutation entries are primarily fiscal in character and do not, by themselves,

create or extinguish title. Therefore, the authorities were justified in

examining whether the vendors possessed a legally transferable interest in

the subject land before sustaining the consequential mutation in favour of the

petitioners. 

21.The contention regarding violation of natural justice also requires

examination in the aforesaid factual background. It is true that the petitioners

were not associated with the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar

and that they allege that the enquiry report dated 12.07.2012 was not

supplied to them before reliance was placed upon it. However, the record, as

noticed from the pleadings, shows that after initiation of the suo motu

proceedings the Collector issued notice to the petitioners, whereupon they

submitted a detailed reply and produced the revenue records and other

documents on which they now rely before this Court. The material findings of

the Collector were thereafter considered by the Board of Revenue in revision.

18

Thus, the question is not merely whether the preliminary enquiry was

conducted in the presence of the petitioners, but whether the petitioners were

ultimately afforded a meaningful opportunity to meet the allegations and

whether failure to supply the preliminary report caused prejudice. In the

present case, the ultimate findings of the revenue authorities substantially

rest upon the nature of the land as reflected in the revenue and settlement

records, rather than upon the oral allegations concerning the partition

documents alone. Consequently, the alleged procedural irregularity, in the

facts of the case, does not appear sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings

in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

22.The further submission that the Collector had no jurisdiction to declare the

registered sale-deeds dated 16.09.2010 null and void deserves acceptance

only to a limited extent. A revenue authority exercising jurisdiction under

Section 50 of the Code, 1959, is primarily concerned with the legality and

propriety of an order passed by a subordinate Revenue Officer and with the

consequential revenue entry; it does not ordinarily exercise the plenary

jurisdiction of a Civil Court to adjudicate complicated questions of title or

formally cancel a registered conveyance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

consistently held that mutation proceedings do not confer title and that

disputed questions of title ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the

competent Civil Court. Therefore, if the impugned order is understood as

finally adjudicating and extinguishing the civil rights flowing from the

registered sale-deeds, such an adjudication would travel beyond the normal

scope of revenue jurisdiction. However, if the order is confined to holding that

the mutation obtained on the strength of the said transactions could not

legally be sustained because the underlying land was subject to statutory

restrictions under Section 165 of the Code, 1959, the revenue authority was

competent to examine the legality of the consequential mutation. The

19

distinction between cancellation of a revenue entry and adjudication of the

validity of a registered instrument is therefore required to be maintained.

23.Section 165(6) of the Code, 1959, imposes restrictions upon transfer of land

held by a Bhumiswami belonging to an aboriginal tribe in favour of a person

not belonging to such tribe, except in accordance with the statutory

requirements, while Section 165(7)(b) of the Code, 1959, in its applicable

field, places restrictions upon attachment or sale in execution of a decree or

order, and Section 165(7-b) of the Code, 1959, restricts transfer of land held

from the State Government or acquired as Bhumiswami under Section 158(3)

of the Code, without the requisite permission of the competent authority.

Section 165(10) of the Code, 1959, further operates at the stage of

registration by prohibiting registration of a document which purports to

contravene the provisions of Section 165 of the Code, 1959. At the same

time, where the alleged illegality relates to a transfer of land by a member of

an aboriginal tribe to a person not belonging to such tribe, Section 170-B of

the Code, 1959, provides a specific statutory mechanism for enquiry by the

Sub-Divisional Officer into the circumstances of such transfer and, upon the

statutory conditions being satisfied, for consequential restoration of the land.

Thus, although the Collector, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under

Section 50 of the Code, 1959, may examine the legality of the mutation and

the applicability of the restrictions contained in Section 165 of the Code,

1959, the mere finding of a contravention of Section 165 of the Code, 1959,

does not, by itself, confer an unrestricted jurisdiction upon the Collector to

adjudicate disputed questions of title and declare a registered sale deed ipso

facto null and void. Where Section 170-B of the Code, 1959, is attracted, the

statutory consequence of an alleged prohibited transfer has to be worked out

through the procedure prescribed therein. Moreover, cancellation or

annulment of a registered conveyance, particularly where its validity and the

title of the parties are disputed, ordinarily falls within the jurisdiction of the

20

competent Civil Court in accordance with law. Therefore, the Collector could

not, merely by exercising revisional powers over the mutation proceedings,

assume the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and formally nullify the registered sale

deeds dated 16.09.2010; the legality and consequential effect of such

transactions were required to be considered within the framework of Sections

165 and 170-B of the Code, 1959, and the jurisdiction specifically conferred

upon the competent statutory or civil forum.

24.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion

that although the Collector was competent, while exercising revisional

jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959,

to examine the legality of the mutation proceedings and the applicability of

the restrictions contained in Section 165 of the Code, he could not have

assumed the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to adjudicate upon the validity of the

registered sale-deeds dated 16.09.2010 and declare the same null and void.

The effect and consequences of an alleged contravention of Section 165 of

the Code, 1959, have to be worked out only in accordance with the statutory

mechanism applicable to the particular nature of the alleged transfer and

before the authority competent in that regard.

25.Accordingly, the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Collector, Surguja,

is partly set aside to the extent whereby the registered sale-deeds dated

16.09.2010 have been declared null and void. The competent authority shall

be at liberty to proceed independently in accordance with law, uninfluenced

by any observation made herein except to the extent expressly decided by

this Court. The order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue

shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.

26.Nothing contained in this order shall, therefore, be construed as preventing

the competent authority from taking such action as may be permissible in law

under applicable provision of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, if

the statutory conditions for invocation thereof are otherwise

21

satisfied. However, such liberty shall not be construed as a declaration by

this Court that Section 170-B of the Code, 1959, is attracted to the

transactions in question or that any proceeding thereunder is otherwise

maintainable.

27.Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed.

28.Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

29.Record of the revenue Courts shall be sent back along with a copy of this

order.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

Judge

Aadil