Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 22224
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Sheikh Hameed – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC No. 2349 of 2022|WPC No. 4192 of 2022|WPC No. 2439 of 2022
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Land Revenue
Act Referred
Transfer of Properties Act: S.54
Specific Relief Act: S.31
Indian Registration Act, 1908
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BP Sharma, Raza Ali, Karthik Kathuria
For the Respondents: Shobhit Mishra, Aniruddh Shrivastava
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of petitions and factual background of land transfer from a government lessee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding the jurisdiction of revenue courts to void registered deeds. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. mandatory requirement of prior permission for transfer of leasehold land under the land revenue code. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts to cancel registered instruments under the specific relief act. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. setting aside of revenue court orders for exceeding judicial jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
C A V Order
1. Since a common question of law is involved in the captioned petitions, all three cases have been consolidated, heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, WPC No. 2349/2022 is treated as the lead case, and the facts of the said petition are being referred to for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered herein shall, however, govern the connected writ petitions as well, as the issues raised therein are identical in nature. In WPC No. 2349/2022 , the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
a. A writ and/or mandamus an order in the nature of mandamus do issue calling for records pertaining to case of petitioner for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if deem fit.
b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue quashing the order dated 5.5.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent Collector and in effect restore name of petitioner in land record as bhumiswami in respect of the said land and allow the petitioner to use and enjoy the said land being bhumiswami in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
c. Cost of the proceedings.
d. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.
3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 5.5.2022, whereby the Collector, Gariyaband observed that the land bearing Khasra No.147/2 area 0.73 hectare situated at Village Gariyaband, Patwari Halka No.8, Dongrigaon is recorded in the name of Sheikh Hameed S/o Mohd. Yusuf (present petitioner) in the Revenue Records of the Patwari. In the Revenue Survey pertaining to the year 1987-88 and its corresponding Misal record, the original Khasra number 147 (new No.97/1) admeasuring 1.25 hectares, is recorded as grassland. Subsequently, vide order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the Additional Collector, Gariyaband in Revenue Case No.64/A-59/Year1988-89, a portion of Khasra No.147 admeasuring 0.86 hectare, was excluded from the Nistrar Patrak and was declared to be cultivable land. Consequently, vide order dated 14.12.2000, the aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Daya Ram S/o Sagun Marar, Village Dongrigaon on the basis of a Patta granting Bhumiswami rights. After the death of Daya Ram, the concerned Gram Panchayat mutated the names of his legal heirs namely Yashoda, widow of Daya Ram, Minor Kiran, Minor Pawan and Minor Meena (all respective sons and daughters). The aforesaid Legal Heirs sold the said property to the present petitioner i.e. Sheikh Hamid and thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue records. The Tehsildar, Gariyaband registered a case and issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the transaction was in contravention of Section 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the CG Land Revenue Code (in short “the Code”). As such, it was recommended that the sale be declared null and void due to the violation of the aforesaid provisions of the Code, as no prior permission was obtained from the Collector before sale of the land under Section 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Code. On the basis of the aforesaid report submitted by the concerned Tehsildar, the SDO (R ), Gariyaband proposed the initiation of proceedings for violation of Section 158(3) and Section 165 (7-b) of the Code. The concerned Collector on the basis of
