Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Impugning legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 2nd March, 2010 passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur, in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./14/R-A-01/37/2010 directing recording the name of respondent No. 2 in the revenue records, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-State of Chhattisgarh. The necessary facts to highlight the subject in dispute are as under:-

(1.1) The respondent No. 2 herein filed an application for mutation of suit land bearing Khasra No. 497/1, area 7.92 acres situated at Village Raipura, District Raipur in the revenue records stating inter alia that she has purchased the suit land by unregistered sale deed dated 15.06.1948 from its owner/erstwhile Malgujar namely Tikamchand S/o Tejmal for a cash consideration of Rs. 951/- and since then she is having possession over the suit land by cultivating the same; and on account of inadvertent mistake or clerical error, her name could not be recorded in the revenue records, which she came to know on 28.12.2002 and thereafter filed application for entering her name in the revenue records.

(1.2) The matter was directed to be placed before the Sub Divisional Officer. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), by its order dated 31.08.2015 rejected that application holding that the suit land is recorded as grass land and the application filed under Section 57(2) of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth "Code") is hopelessly barred by limitation.

(1.3) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with that order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Collector, Raipur. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal by affirming the order of Sub Divisional Officer.

(1.4) Respondent No. 2 herein preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue with a delay of three years. The Board of Revenue by its impugned order dated 02.03.2010 not only condoned the delay in filing the revision but also simultaneously allowed the revision directing mutation of the name of respondent No. 2 in the revenue records, against which instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the same by the State of Chhattisgarh, petitioner herein.

2. Mr. Arun Sao, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/petitioner would submit that the Board of Revenue is absolutely unjustified in directing the recording the name of respondent No. 2 in the revenue records as the mutation was claimed on the basis of unregistered sale deed dated 15.06.1948 after period of 53 years whereas under Section 109 of the Code, a person lawfully acquiring any right or interest in land has to be report to the Patwari within six months from the date of such acquisition and no right or title is created in favour of respondent No. 2 on the basis of unregistered sale deed and, therefore, order passed by the Board of Revenue directing mutation of the name of respondent No. 2 is unsustainable and bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondent No. 2 has acquired title over the suit land by sale deed dated 15.06.1948 from erstwhile Malgujar namely Tikamchand S/o Tejmal and obtained possession and made application for mutation of all the properties including the suit land but the suit land could not be mutated on account of some typographical/clerical error and since she is in possession from that day, she is entitled to be mutated her name in he revenue records. He placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Begam Suraiya Rashid and others v. State of M.P. and others, (2006) 3 SCC 305 in support of his case.

4. I have heard learned counsel appealing for the parties; and also considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. The petitioner's application is initially made before the Tahsi