NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(C) No. 2046 of 2019 • Rajkishore Gupta, aged about 61 years, son of late Shankar Lal Gupta resident of Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, presently residing at Baderbhata, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)

---- Petitioner Versus

1. Ramesh Gupta, aged about 60 years, son of Shri Anand Gupta, resident of Sadar Bazaar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Cell No. 09229493571

2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Land Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

3. The Tahsildar (Nazul), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

08.02.2024

1. The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated

12.03.2019, whereby the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, Division Raipur dated 16.12.2013 has been affirmed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that one Govind Prasad Bani (Gupta) was the owner of a house admeasuring 725 sq. ft. situated over Nazul Sheet No. 32C, plot No. 14/1, Dhamtari. He executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 11.02.1988. Thereafter, Govind Prasad Bani, after three years, again sold the property in question to respondent No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 23.02.1991 without disclosing the fact of the earlier sale. The petitioner moved an application for mutation before the Tehsildar (Nazul), Dhamtari based on the sale deed dated 11.02.1988. The Tehsildar issued a proclamation, invited objections and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The Tehsildar passed the order on 12.05.2008 in favour of the petitioner and in that proceeding, respondent No.1/subsequent purchaser was a party and sufficient opportunity was afforded to him. The Tehsildar observed that the petitioner is the first purchaser; therefore, he has the right over the suit property and allowed the application moved by the petitioner and passed an order to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and vide order dated 13.02.2009 the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 12.05.2008 was set aside on the ground that there are no allegations with regard to fraud, earlier the name of respondent No. 1 was already entered into the revenue records and the matter of mutation cannot be reopened. It was also observed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) that the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1988, but no application was moved for mutation for long 19 years even though possession was not taken over. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) before the Court of Additional Commissioner Raipur, Division Raipur and vide order dated 16.12.2013 the same was dismissed affirming the finding recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). The petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which came to be dismissed affirming the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue).

3. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed on 11.02.1988. He would further submit that the owner of the property sold the property in question to respondent No.1 through a registered sale deed on 23.02.1991 without disclosing the fact of the earlier sale. He would also submit that though an order of mutation was passed in favour of respondent No.1, it does not confer title in his favour. He would further contend that respondent No.1 ought to have inquired about the status of the property before purchasing it according to the prov