Chattisgarh High Court
Chandro Ram (Died Through Lrs) vs Ganjhu on 28 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19687
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3864 of 2021
1 - Chandro Ram (Died Through Lrs)
1.1 - Rudra Prasad Yadav S/o Late Chandro Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon And District - Jashpur (C.G.)
1.2 - Jaadbo Ram Yadav S/o Late Chandro Ram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon And District - Jashpur (C.G.)
1.3 - Lochan Ram Yadav S/o Late Chandro Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon And District - Jashpur (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Ganjhu S/o Chamru Aged About 42 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Rajkumar S/o Jagarnath (Presently Died) Through L.R.-
2A- Pradeep S/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 45 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o
Village Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
3 - Ramlal S/o Jagarnath Aged About 60 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
4 - Dharam Sai S/o Dhan Singh Aged About 65 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o
Village Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Budhram S/o Dhan Singh Aged About 55 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o
Village Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
6 - Lohar Sai S/o Tedgo Aged About 60 Years By Caste - Nagwanshi, R/o Village
Chhatasarai, Tahsil Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
.. Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Md. Ruhul Ameen Memon, Advocate
For Respondents 1, 3 to 6 : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate
For Respondent No.7/ Mr. Ujjwal Choubey and Ms. Vartika
State Shrivastava, Panel Lawyers
Digitally
signed by
BINI
BINI PRADEEP
PRADEEP Date:
2026.04.30
11:20:29
+0530
2(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
28.04.2026
1. Heard on IA No.4/2026, application for taking additional document on
record.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in allowing the
aforesaid application.
3. On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, IA
No.4/2026 is allowed and the document annexed along with the application is
taken on record.
4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
5. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging impugned order dated 17.08.2021
(Annexure-P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur
(CG), whereby revision application preferred by original petitioner Late
Chandro Ram, has been rejected, and the order dated 29.01.2018
(Annexure-P/7) passed by the Collector, Distt. Jashpur, affirming the order
dated 19.6.2017 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Pathalgaon Distt. Jashpur has been upheld. The Sub Divisional
Officer (Revenue) vide Order dated 19.06.2017 (AnnexureP/6) directed that
the land bearing Khasra No.390/2 area 1.619 hectare (hereinafter referred as
‘the subject property’) be reverted back to the legal heirs of the original tribal
holder i.e. respondents 1 to 6 herein. The said order has been affirmed by
the Collector and the Commissioner.
6. Facts of the case, in brief are, that Budhu Ram Mahkul, father of the
original petitioner Late Chandro, purchased the subject property vide a
registered sale deed dated 25.11.1953 from Raghunath, the predecessor of
3respondents 1 to 6. The said land was mutated in the name of Budhuram
Mahkul in the year 1953 itself, and thereafter he remained in peaceful
possession of the subject property. Despite the sale and mutation, the
predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 6 did not initiate any proceedings for
several years. However, in the year 2014-15, respondents No. 1 to 6 filed an
application under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,
1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) before the Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Pathalgaon, alleging that the petitioner had illegally taken
possession of the subject property on the ground that he had purchased the
same. After examining the parties, the SDO (R), Pathalgaon, allowed the
application filed by respondents 1 to 6, holding that though the subject land
was purchased in the year 1953 by Budhuram Mahkul, the mutation was
allegedly carried out on 28.02.1962, i.e. after 02.10.1959, when Section 170-
B of the Code was came into force, and that the petitioner or his predecessor
failed to notify the transaction as required under Section 170-B(1) of the
Code. This finding was affirmed by the Collector, Jashpur, vide order dated
29.01.2018 (Annexure P/7), and further upheld by the Commissioner, Surguja
Division, vide impugned order dated 17.08.2021 (Annexure-P/1). Hence, the
present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land was
purchased by Budhuram Mahkul through a registered sale deed dated
25.11.1953 and the same was duly mutated by him in revenue record in the
year 1953 itself. In this regard, he filed document Khate Ka Ghoshwara
(Annexure-P/10). He has further drawn attention of this Court to Annexure
P/3, which is Adhikar Abhilekh of the year 1954-55. It is contended that the
SDO (Revenue) has erroneously recorded a finding that the mutation was
carried out on 28.02.1962, whereas the Adhikar Abhilekh of the year 1954-55
4
itself establishes that the land stood mutated in the name of Budhu Mahkul.
Thus, SDO(R), Pathalgaron has completely misunderstood and
misinterpreted the documents on record, hence, he prays that this petition
may be allowed and order passed by SDO(R) and upheld by the Collector,
Jashpur and the Commissioner, Surguja Division be set aside/quashed.
8. In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 3 to 6 supports
the order passed by the SDO (R) and upheld by the Collector, Jashpur and
the Commissioner, Surguja Division.
9. Learned counsel for the State also supports the order passed by the
above revenue authorities.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
11. Undisputedly, the subject land was purchased by Budhuram Mahkul on
25.11.1953 vide a registered sale deed from Raghunath, S/o. Negi, who was
predecessor of respondents 1 to 6. SDO (R), Pathalgaon has also stated
aforesaid fact in its order dated 19.6.2017, however, as stated that mutation
of the subject land was carried out by Budhu Mahkul on 28.2.1962, but this
fact is found to be wrong as in the said order (Annexure-P/6), the SDO(R)
has recorded that amendment/rectification was carried out on 28.02.1962,
which was done in respect of Khasra No.390/1, whereas subject land of the
instant petition/case is Khasra No.390/2. Aforesaid finding recorded by the
SDO(R), which has been upheld by the Collector and the Commissioner is
found to be wrong, because Adhikar Abhilesh of the year 1954-55 (Annexure-
P/3) itself recorded subject land as Khasra No.390/2 in the name of Budhu
Mahkul, which shows that aforesaid land was already recorded prior to 1954-
55 in his name, which got support from Annexure-P/10, which is the
document filed by the petitioner before this Court, namely Khate ka
5
Ghoshwara. Thus, Budhurasm Mahkul, father of original petitioner, not only
purchased the subject land on 25.11.1953 by a registered sale deed, but also
got mutated the same in his name in the year 1953-54 itself.
12. There are two conflicting views expressed by learned Single Benchs of
this Court regarding whether the provisions of Section 170B of the Code
apply to the transaction made prior to 02.10.1959 or not. This issue was
referred to learned Division Bench by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice
formulating questions of law, which reads as under:-
“Whether the provision of Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh
Land Revenue Code, 1959 inserted vide M.P. Amendment
Act No. 15 of 1980 with effect from 24-12-1980, are
applicable in respect of transactions prior to commencement
of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, involving
transfer / acquisition of right by a non-tribal over a land
which, before such acquisition of title or interest or transfer,
belonged to a member of tribe who has been declared to be
an aboriginal tribe under sub section (6) of Section 165 of the
C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959?”
13. After considering the issue, the learned Division Bench in WP
No.1066/2002 dated 23.01.2015(Yadram (Dead) Through LRS. Smt.
Yamuna Bai & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) observed and
answered the question in para 19, which reads as under:-
“19. In view of the legal opinion we have formed regarding
the applicability of Section 170-B of the Code, we answer the
question referred that the provisions of Section 170-B of the
Code and Act No. 15 of 1980 (with effect from 24-10-1980)
will apply in respect of transaction involving transfer /
acquisition of right by a non-tribal over a land, before such
acquisition of title or interest or transfer, belonged to member
of tribe who has been declared to be an aboriginal under
sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the Code from the
commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,
61959 i.e. 2-10-1959 till commencement of the Amendment
Act, 1980 i.e. 24-10-1980.”
14. Thus, it has been settled by learned Division Bench of this Court that
for transaction entered into before 02.10.1959, the provision contained under
Section 170-B of the Code have no application.
15. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the SDO(R), Pathalgaon has
wrongly observed that mutation/amendment/rectification of the subject land
was carried out on 28.02.1962, and this finding was upheld by the Collector
as well as the Commissioner. Even if the mutation has taken place after
02.10.1959, Section 170-B of the Code would not be attracted, because plain
language of Section 170 B of the Code covers transaction between
02.10.1959 and 24.10.1980 when Amendment Act No.15 of 1980 was made
effective by introducing Section 170-B of the Code. Mutation/rectification of
the name of the purchaser is by itself not a transaction independent of the
sale deed. The transaction transferring title of the land is one which is
permissible in law under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The
sale of immovable property for more than Rs.100/- can happen only by
execution of the registered sale deed, therefore, it is this transaction of the
execution of the sale deed which is the date on which title would transfer.
The subsequent order mutating the name of the purchaser is only the act
pursuant to the transaction whereas title had already passed on the
purchaser.
16. In view of the above discussion, since Budhuram Mahkul had
purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed dated 25.11.1953
from Raghunath, S/o. Negi (predecessor of respondents 1 to 6), and it was
also got mutated in his name in the year 1953-54, therefore, aforesaid land
was recorded in his name in the Adhikar Abhilekh (Annexure-P/3), hence,
7
aforesaid transaction does not fall within the ambit of Section 170-B of the
Code, and therefore, initiation of proceedings under the said provision against
the petitioner was wholly unwarranted.
17. Accordingly, the order dated 19.6.2017 (Annexure-P/6) passed by Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur and upheld by the
Collector vide Order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure-P/7) and further upheld by
the Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.8.2021 (Annexure-P/1)
suffer from perversity and illegality, hence, all the above three orders passed
by the revenue authorities are set aside.
18. The petition is accordingly allowed.
19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Bini
