##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:22418

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP227 No. 552 of 2026

1 - Mohammad Salim Rokadiya S/o Dawood Rokadiya Aged About 55

Years R/o Salhevaar Para, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari

(C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Mohammad Arif Rokadiya S/o Dawood Rokadiya Aged About

55years R/o Akshganga Colony House No.48, Rudri Road, Dhamtari

Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Dr. N.K.Shukla, Sr. Counsel assisted by

Mr. Nitikesh Gupta and Mr. Nikesh Kumar

Ghole, Advocates

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

Order on Board

12/05/2026

Heard.

Present is a petition preferred under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India calling in question the legality, validity and propriety

of the order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of

2

Revenue, Bilaspur Circuit Court at Raipur in Revenue Revision Case

No. R.N/24/R/A-6/68/2020, whereby the revision preferred by the

petitioner has been dismissed affirming the orders passed by the

subordinate revenue authorities.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on

the strength of the alleged gift deed executed by the petitioner in favour

of the respondent, the concerned Revenue Authority proceeded to

mutate the name of the respondent, which mutation was subsequently

certified by the Tahsildar, Gurur, District Balod, without adhering to the

mandatory procedure prescribed under the relevant mutation rules. It is

contended that no notice whatsoever was issued prior to mutation came

to be ordered and certified by the Tahsildar. According to the petitioner,

the mutation proceedings having been conducted in utter disregard of

the prescribed procedure and in violation of principles of natural justice,

the resultant orders are rendered unsustainable in law.

3. It is further argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),

Balod, the Commissioner, Durg Division as well as the Chhattisgarh

Board of Revenue have mechanically affirmed the mutation order

without properly considering the specific objection raised by the

petitioner that the mutation proceedings were conducted dehors the

statutory rules governing mutation. She contended that where a

particular procedure has been prescribed by statute for mutation of the

name of a person acquiring title, strict adherence thereto is imperative

and any deviation therefrom vitiates the entire proceedings. It is thus

Digitally signed

submittebdy S UtGhUNaAt in absence of issuance of notice and affording adequate

SUGUNA DUBEY

DUBEY D 20a 2te 6: .05.14

11:58:14

+0530

3

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned orders suffer from

patent illegality, procedural impropriety and jurisdictional infirmity and

are therefore liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent

supported the impugned orders and submitted that the registered gift

deed dated 30.09.2016, which forms the very basis of mutation, has

admittedly never been challenged by the petitioner before any

competent forum. It has further been contended that the petitioner

himself had moved an application before the concerned revenue

authorities seeking mutation of the respondent’s name and therefore

the question of issuance of any further notice to the parties did not

arise. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there are concurrent

findings recorded by the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)

and the Board of Revenue and the same do not warrant interference in

exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the material available on record.

6. The challenge in the present petition pertains to the mutation

order certified by the Tahsildar, Gurur on 02.01.2017 on the basis of the

registered gift deed dated 30.09.2016 executed in favour of the

respondent. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid registered gift deed

has not been assai