1. Writ petition under Article 227 challenging revisional order directing mutation of acquired land; petitioner owns adjacent land and disputes the mutation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BHARAT LAL BHOI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WP227/1255/2025
1. Writ petition under Article 227 challenging revisional order directing mutation of acquired land; petitioner owns adjacent land and disputes the mutation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
2. Petitioner asserts land vested in State by acquisition and subsequent sale deed void; respondents rely on registered title and challenge locus standi. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
3. Writ petition dismissed for lack of locus standi; no interference under Article 227; liberty to seek demarcation; interim order vacated; no costs. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
No. A legal right and corresponding injury are prerequisites; a petitioner disclaiming ownership of the land cannot maintain a challenge to its mutation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 36 )
No. Mutation is maintained for fiscal purposes; it neither creates nor extinguishes title and has no presumptive value on title. (Para 31 )
Interference is limited to jurisdictional errors, patent perversity, or gross failure of justice; the High Court does not act as an appellate court or reappreciate evidence. (Para 32 , 33 )
No. Boundary and identity disputes require demarcation before the competent revenue authorities; they cannot be raised by challenging mutation of another parcel. (Para 30 , 37 )
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
C A V Order
1. The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Bench at Raipur) in Revenue Revision Case No. RN/12/R/A-6/240/2015. By the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, Mahasamund and has directed mutation of the name of respondent No. 8 in the revenue records pertaining to land bearing Khasra No. 532/1, admeasuring 0.336 hectare, situated at Village Mahasamund, P.H. No. 89/42, Tahsil and District Mahasamund. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and has sought the following reliefs in the writ petition:–
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revision Case No. RN/12/R/A-6/240/2025, by the Court of learned Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Bench- Raipur) and further commanding the respondent authorities to comply with the personal affidavit of secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh (Annexure P-19) and the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jagpal Singh's case (above mentioned) and in furtherance of circular (Annexure P-13), the land reserved for canal (as per the award, Annexure P-4) and its connected may kindly be restored by the respondent authorities and further illegal transfer thereon upon the subject land (Annexure P-10) may immediately be prevented by the respondent authorities, within time frame.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the courts below for its kind perusal.
10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the recorded owner and in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 532/2, admeasuring 0.336 hectare, situated at Village Mahasamund, P.H. No. 89/42, Tahsil and District Mahasamund, which is adjoining the land bearing Khasra No. 532/1, admeasuring 0.336 hectare. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 8, with an intention to encroach upon and unlawfully claim the petitioner’s land, has been making persistent efforts to project the petitioner’s land as forming part of the land belonging to respondent No. 8. It is also the case of the petitioner that the original owner of the larger parcel of land bearing Khasra No. 532 was one Tularam Chandrakar. In the year 1955, the petitioner’s grandfather, late Buddhuram Bhoi, purchased a portion of the said land from Tularam Chandrakar, while the remaining portion was sold to one Nohar Satnami. Thereafter, in the year 1975, Nohar Satnami transferred the land bearing Khasra No. 532/1 in favour of Devsingh, Bittan and Kamal Kumar Tamboli. The petitioner contends that the title and possession of the respective portions of land have thereafter continued in accordance with the aforesaid transactions and that respondent No. 8 is now attempting to create a dispute with regard to the identity and ownership of the petitioner’s land.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that land bearing Khasra No. 532/1, admeasuring 0.336 hectare, situated at Village Mahasamund, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Mahasamund, for the Irrigation/Water Resources Department of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in Revenue Case No. 12-A/82/90/91. An award in respect of the said acquisition was passed on 04.07.1991, pursuant to which compensation amounting to Rs. 18,555/- was disbursed to Devsingh, Biranbai and Kamal Kumar Tamboli. According to the petitioner, despite the aforesaid acquisition and vesting of the land in t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top