Chattisgarh High Court
Chandro Ram (Died Through Lrs) vs Ganjhu on 28 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19687
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3864 of 2021
1 - Chandro Ram (Died Through Lrs)
1.1 - Rudra Prasad Yadav S/o Late Chandro Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon And District - Jashpur (C.G.)
1.2 - Jaadbo Ram Yadav S/o Late Chandro Ram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon And District - Jashpur (C.G.)
1.3 - Lochan Ram Yadav S/o Late Chandro Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon And District - Jashpur (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Ganjhu S/o Chamru Aged About 42 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Rajkumar S/o Jagarnath (Presently Died) Through L.R.-
2A- Pradeep S/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 45 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o
Village Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
3 - Ramlal S/o Jagarnath Aged About 60 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
4 - Dharam Sai S/o Dhan Singh Aged About 65 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o
Village Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Budhram S/o Dhan Singh Aged About 55 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o
Village Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
6 - Lohar Sai S/o Tedgo Aged About 60 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
.. Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Md. Ruhul Ameen Memon, Advocate For Respondents 1, 3 to 6 : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondent No.7/ Mr. Ujjwal Choubey and Ms. Vartika State Shrivastava, Panel Lawyers Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date:
2026.04.30 11:20:29 +0530 2 (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 28.04.2026
1. Heard on IA No.4/2026, application for taking additional document on record.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in allowing the aforesaid application.
3. On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, IA No.4/2026 is allowed and the document annexed along with the application is taken on record.
4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
5. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging impugned order dated 17.08.2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur (CG), whereby revision application preferred by original petitioner Late Chandro Ram, has been rejected, and the order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Collector, Distt. Jashpur, affirming the order dated 19.6.2017 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathalgaon Distt. Jashpur has been upheld. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide Order dated 19.06.2017 (AnnexureP/6) directed that the land bearing Khasra No.390/2 area 1.619 hectare (hereinafter referred as 'the subject property') be reverted back to the legal heirs of the original tribal holder i.e. respondents 1 to 6 herein. The said order has been affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner.
6. Facts of the case, in brief are, that Budhu Ram Mahkul, father of the original petitioner Late Chandro, purchased the subject property vide a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1953 from Raghunath, the predecessor of 3 respondents 1 to 6. The said land was mutated in the name of Budhuram Mahkul in the year 1953 itself, and thereafter he remained in peaceful possession of the subject property. Despite the sale and mutation, the predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 6 did not initiate any proceedings for several years. However, in the year 2014-15, respondents No. 1 to 6 filed an application under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathalgaon, alleging that the petitioner had illegally taken possession of the subject property on the ground that he had purchased the same. After examining the parties, the SDO (R), Pathalgaon, allowed the application filed by respondents 1 to 6, holding that though the subject land was purchased in the year 1953 by Budhuram Mahkul, the mutation was allegedly carried out on 28.02.1962, i.e. after 02.10.1959, when Section 170-
B of the Code was came into force, and that the petitioner or his predecessor failed to notify the transaction as required under Section 170-B(1) of the Code. This finding was affirmed by the Collector, Jashpur, vide order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure P/7), and further upheld by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, vide impugned order dated 17.08.2021 (Annexure-P/1). Hence, the present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land was purchased by Budhuram Mahkul through a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1953 and the same was duly mutated by him in revenue record in the year 1953 itself. In this regard, he filed document Khate Ka Ghoshwara (Annexure-P/10). He has further drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P/3, which is Adhikar Abhilekh of the year 1954-55. It is contended that the SDO (Revenue) has erroneously recorded a finding that the mutation was carried out on 28.02.1962, whereas the Adhikar Abhilekh of the year 1954-55 4 itself establishes that the land stood mutated in the name of Budhu Mahkul. Thus, SDO(R), Pathalgaron has completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the documents on record, hence, he prays that this petition may be allowed and order passed by SDO(R) and upheld by the Collector, Jashpur and the Commissioner, Surguja Division be set aside/quashed.
8. In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 3 to 6 supports the order passed by the SDO (R) and upheld by the Collector, Jashpur and the Commissioner, Surguja Division.
9. Learned counsel for the State also supports the order passed by the above revenue authorities.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
11. Undisputedly, the subject land was purchased by Budhuram Mahkul on 25.11.1953 vide a registered sale deed from Raghunath, S/o. Negi, who was predecessor of respondents 1 to 6. SDO (R), Pathalgaon has also stated aforesaid fact in its order dated 19.6.2017, however, as stated that mutation of the subject land was carried out by Budhu Mahkul on 28.2.1962, but this fact is found to be wrong as in the said order (Annexure-P/6), the SDO(R) has recorded that amendment/rectification was carried out on 28.02.1962, which was done in respect of Khasra No.390/1, whereas subject land of the instant petition/case is Khasra No.390/2. Aforesaid finding recorded by the SDO(R), which has been upheld by the Collector and the Commissioner is found to be wrong, because Adhikar Abhilesh of the year 1954-55 (Annexure- P/3) itself recorded subject land as Khasra No.390/2 in the name of Budhu Mahkul, which shows that aforesaid land was already recorded prior to 1954- 55 in his name, which got support from Annexure-P/10, which is the document filed by the petitioner before this Court, namely Khate ka 5 Ghoshwara. Thus, Budhurasm Mahkul, father of original petitioner, not only purchased the subject land on 25.11.1953 by a registered sale deed, but also got mutated the same in his name in the year 1953-54 itself.
12. There are two conflicting views expressed by learned Single Benchs of this Court regarding whether the provisions of Section 170B of the Code apply to the transaction made prior to 02.10.1959 or not. This issue was referred to learned Division Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice formulating questions of law, which reads as under:-
"Whether the provision of Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 inserted vide M.P. Amendment Act No. 15 of 1980 with effect from 24-12-1980, are applicable in respect of transactions prior to commencement of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, involving transfer / acquisition of right by a non-tribal over a land which, before such acquisition of title or interest or transfer, belonged to a member of tribe who has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub section (6) of Section 165 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959?"
13. After considering the issue, the learned Division Bench in WP No.1066/2002 dated 23.01.2015(Yadram (Dead) Through LRS. Smt. Yamuna Bai & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) observed and answered the question in para 19, which reads as under:-
"19. In view of the legal opinion we have formed regarding the applicability of Section 170-B of the Code, we answer the question referred that the provisions of Section 170-B of the Code and Act No. 15 of 1980 (with effect from 24-10-1980) will apply in respect of transaction involving transfer / acquisition of right by a non-tribal over a land, before such acquisition of title or interest or transfer, belonged to member of tribe who has been declared to be an aboriginal under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code from the commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 6 1959 i.e. 2-10-1959 till commencement of the Amendment Act, 1980 i.e. 24-10-1980."
14. Thus, it has been settled by learned Division Bench of this Court that for transaction entered into before 02.10.1959, the provision contained under Section 170-B of the Code have no application.
15. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the SDO(R), Pathalgaon has wrongly observed that mutation/amendment/rectification of the subject land was carried out on 28.02.1962, and this finding was upheld by the Collector as well as the Commissioner. Even if the mutation has taken place after 02.10.1959, Section 170-B of the Code would not be attracted, because plain language of Section 170 B of the Code covers transaction between 02.10.1959 and 24.10.1980 when Amendment Act No.15 of 1980 was made effective by introducing Section 170-B of the Code. Mutation/rectification of the name of the purchaser is by itself not a transaction independent of the sale deed. The transaction transferring title of the land is one which is permissible in law under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The sale of immovable property for more than Rs.100/- can happen only by execution of the registered sale deed, therefore, it is this transaction of the execution of the sale deed which is the date on which title would transfer. The subsequent order mutating the name of the purchaser is only the act pursuant to the transaction whereas title had already passed on the purchaser.
16. In view of the above discussion, since Budhuram Mahkul had purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed dated 25.11.1953 from Raghunath, S/o. Negi (predecessor of respondents 1 to 6), and it was also got mutated in his name in the year 1953-54, therefore, aforesaid land was recorded in his name in the Adhikar Abhilekh (Annexure-P/3), hence, 7 aforesaid transaction does not fall within the ambit of Section 170-B of the Code, and therefore, initiation of proceedings under the said provision against the petitioner was wholly unwarranted.
17. Accordingly, the order dated 19.6.2017 (Annexure-P/6) passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur and upheld by the Collector vide Order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure-P/7) and further upheld by the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.8.2021 (Annexure-P/1) suffer from perversity and illegality, hence, all the above three orders passed by the revenue authorities are set aside.
18. The petition is accordingly allowed.
19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini