Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:30911
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved for Order on 18.06.2025
Pronouncement for Order on 07.07.2025
WPC No.960 of 2021
Mukesh Kumar Singh S/o Parshu Ram Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o
Chilhari Niwas, Opposite M. B.-16, Padumnagar, Bhilai,-3, District Durg
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Lallu Ram Verma S/o Late Ramsumer Verma R/o Nrankari Bhawan,
Road-41, Sector-08, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
3 - Nandkishore Pandey S/o G. P. Pandey R/o Near Shakuntala School,
Ramnagar, Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
4 - Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
State Bank Premises, Sector-1, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. P. R. Patankar appears along with
Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocates
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal SATISH CAV Order TUMANE
1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar is questioning
the legality and propriety of the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the
Digitally
signed by Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, in Case No.288/A-70/2019-20,
SATISH
TUMANE
whereby, the learned Commissioner, while upholding the orders dated
2
28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) and 23.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg and the Additional
Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, respectively, has dismissed the appeal
preferred by the petitioner, holding it to be not maintainable.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land bearing Khasra
No.1161/1, Plot No.28-A, admeasuring 1250 square feet was owned by
one Prakash Samantkar, while the land bearing Khasra No.1169/2, Plot
No.28-B, admeasuring 1250 square feet by A. Surya Narayan and the
entire said land, which falls within Khasra Nos.1153 to 1199, was
mortgaged by them with the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to
as “the Bank”) for obtaining the loan amount and when they failed to
repay the same, a symbolic possession of it was taken over by the said
Bank and thereafter, moved an application before the District
Magistrate, Durg for obtaining its physical possession, who in turn,
passed the orders on 28.02.2013 and 23.05.2015 in favour of the Bank
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as
“the SARFAESI Act“).
3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, a Securitisation Application
No.121/2015 was moved by one Lallu Ram Verma, the respondent
No.2 herein, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, (hereinafter
referred to as “the Tribunal”), alleging inter alia, that the land bearing
Khasra No.1211/1 (Old Khasra No.169) admeasuring 2600 square feet,
consisting of Plot No.19 was held by him, as the same, which falls
within the limit of Khasra Nos.1200 to 1223, was purchased by his
father under the registered deed of sale dated 14.07.1981 from one
3
Chandrika Prasad, but, the said borrowers-Prakash Samantkar and A.
Surya Narayan and the Bank with the malafide intentions misguided
the Court of District Magistrate in order to get the physical possession
of his land, i.e. the land bearing Khasra No.1211 admeasuring 2600
square feet, which compelled him to file the said Securitisation
Application.
4. The aforesaid application was contested by said borrowers and the
Bank and, upon due consideration of their contentions, the Tribunal
vide its order dated 05.01.2017 (Annexure P-2), directed the District
Magistrate, Durg to get the alleged land, held by him, i.e. Lallu Ram,
identified first and then demarcate physically with that of the properties
held by said borrowers before executing the order dated 23.05.2015 for
providing physical possession of the secured assets to the said Bank.
5. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the proceeding was initiated
and, during the course of the said proceedings, an objection (Annexure
P-5) dated 24.07.2019 was raised by the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar,
alleging therein, that the part of the land bearing Khasra No.1153/1
admeasuring 0.02 hectare (2500 square feet) was purchased by his
father under the registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008 from
Rambagas, Nand Kumar and Ajay Kumar through the Power of
Attorney holder, namely, Vinod Kumar Son of Hiru Ram. It appears
further that the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, vide its order dated
23.09.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed in Revenue Case
No.RC-51-A/70/2016-17, has held that the vendors of the alleged
registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008 have no alienable interest
over it and have sold fraudulently while showing it to be the part of the
4
Khasra No.1153/1, whereas, the said Plot No.28 was situated at
Khasra No.1169 (Old Khasra No.168/17) and would, therefore, not
confer any title upon him (Mukesh Kumar) and, accordingly, held that
said Lallu Ram has valid title over the alleged land, i.e. the land
bearing Khasra No.1211 admeasuring 2600 square feet, and exists on
the spot and, in consequence, directed for removal of the petitioner’s
possession from the land bearing Khasra No.1169, Plot No.28
admeasuring 2500 square feet with a direction that a part of it, i.e.1250
square feet be provided to the Bank, while rest, i.e. 1250 square feet to
said Nand Kishore Pandey and, directed further that the possession of
the Bank from the land bearing Khasra No.1211, Plot No.19, area 2600
square feet, held by said Lallu Ram, be removed and provided to him
(Lallu Ram).
6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by
the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg as per
the provision prescribed under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land
Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”),
who in turn, vide its order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) has
dismissed the same, holding it to be not maintainable as the order
passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar was not an original
order, passed under the Code, 1959, so as to examine its validity in
appeal and, the finding so recorded, was affirmed further by the
Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg vide order dated 17.12.2020
(Annexure P-1) in appeal preferred by the petitioner. This is the order,
which has been impugned by way of filing this petition by the petitioner-
Mukesh Kumar.
5
7. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the finding recorded by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai
Nagar, holding that the vendors of the petitioner have no alienable
interest over the land purchased by him (Mukesh Kumar), is apparently
in excess of its jurisdiction even without considering the objection
raised by him and therefore, the order impugned as passed by the
Commissioner upholding the same, is apparently contrary to law and
deserves to be quashed. It is contended further that since the said
order was passed in exercise of the powers provided under the Code,
1959, therefore, the appeal preferred their against ought not to have
been held to be not maintainable, and, praying for remanding the
matter before the appropriate authority for deciding his alleged
objection in accordance with law.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
have supported the order impugned as passed by the Revenue
Authorities.
9. I have learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire
papers carefully.
10. The questions, which arise for determination in this petition are:-
i. “Whether the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar was
justified in holding that the registered deed of sale,
dated 03.11.2008, executed in favour of petitioner’s
father by his vendor, was without any authority and
would, therefore, not confer any valid interest upon
him?
ii. Whether the Appellate Revenue Authorities were
justified in holding that the appeals preferred by the
petitioner against the order of the Additional Tahsildar,
Bhilai Nagar, are not maintainable”?
6
11. From perusal of the record, it appears that the land bearing Khasra
No.1169/1, Plot No.28-A admeasuring 1250 square feet was owned by
one Prakash Samantkar, while the land bearing Khasra No.1169/2,
Plot No.28-B admeasuring 1250 square feet by A. Surya Narayan, who
have jointly purchased the same i.e.,2500 square feet situated at
Bajrang Nagar, Village- Kohka, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) under the
registered deed of sale dated 28.03.2006 purported to have been
executed by one Shivratan Nema and, the land so purchased, was
thereafter converted as mentioned herein-above in their respective
names.
12. The aforesaid lands were mortgaged by them with the Bank for
obtaining the loan amount, but, have failed to repay the same, owing to
which, the symbolic possession of it was taken over by the said Bank
and thereafter, moved an application under the SARFAESI Act before
the District Magistrate, Durg for its physical possession, who in turn,
has passed the orders on 28.02.2013 and 23.05.2015 directing for
providing the alleged mortgaged land to the Bank.
13. During the execution proceedings of the aforesaid order, an objection
was raised by the respondent-Lallu Ram by moving an application,
marked as Securitisation Application No.121/2015, under Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act before the Tribunal. According to him, the land
bearing Khasra No.1211 admeasuring 2600 square feet purchased by
his father under the registered deed of sale dated 14.07.1981, was
neither the subject matter of the proceedings initiated by the Bank
under the SARFAESI Act for obtaining possession of the land held and
mortgaged by the said borrowers, nor any order was passed for
7
directing possession of his alleged land to the Bank, but the said
borrowers and the Bank with an ulterior motive and with a malafide
intention are misguiding the Court of District Magistrate, Durg, in order
to get the physical possession of his land.
14. The aforesaid objection raised by said Lallu Ram was contested by
said borrowers and the Bank and after consideration of their
contentions, it was held by the Tribunal vide its order dated 05.01.2017
(Annexure P-2) that the alleged objection/application made by said
Lallu Ram under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable
and in order to ascertain the fact as to whether the Bank is trying to
take the physical possession of his land or not, a direction was issued
to the District Magistrate, Durg to get it first identified and demarcate
the alleged land physically with that of the properties held and
mortgaged by the said borrowers, before executing the order for
providing physical possession of the secured assets to the Bank. The
relevant observations made in this regard at paragraph 14, reads as
under:-
“Para 14……………
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances,
the District Magistrate, Durg is directed to first identify
and physically demarcate the property of the Applicant
with that of property of Respondent No.-2 and 3 before
executing his order dated 23.05.2015 for giving
physical possession of the secured assets to the
Bank”.
15. The aforesaid direction was issued by the Tribunal as there was the
dispute exists amongst the parties regarding their boundaries and was,
therefore, issued for ascertaining the identity of the land in question. In
view of the aforesaid specific direction, it is, thus, evident that before
providing the physical possession of the secured assets, held by the
8
borrowers to the Bank, an identification and/or the demarcation of the
land held by said respondent-Lallu Ram with that of the borrowers are
to be carried out. It, therefore, appears that the Additional Tahsildar
was directed by the District Magistrate for complying with the said
direction as the same could be done by the Revenue Authority, i.e. the
Tahsildar/ Additional Tahsildar, under the provision prescribed under
Section 125 of the Code, 1959.
16. Section 125 of the Code, 1959 is relevant for the purpose, which
provides as under :-
“125. Disputes regarding boundaries between
villages, survey numbers and plot numbers.
– All disputes regarding boundaries of villages, survey
numbers and plot numbers where such boundaries
have been fixed under the provisions of Section 124,
shall be decided by the Tahsildar after local inquiry at
which all persons interested shall have an opportunity
of appearing and producing evidence.”
17. While acting under the aforesaid provision, a direction was issued by
the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar to the Revenue Inspector,
Division Kohka, Tahsil and District Durg to submit its demarcation
report and, in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Inspector, Kohka has
submitted his report (Annexure P-3) to the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai
Nagar, stating therein that the alleged land pointed out by the Bank is
not available on the spot and instead, the name-board of the petitioner-
Mukesh Kumar is found to be installed there on the spot. It appears
further from a bare perusal of the Panchnama (Annexure P-4) dated
19.02.2019, made on the basis of the order dated 11.02.2019 passed
by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar in Revenue Case
No.51-A/70/2016-17, that when the physical possession of the land
9
was being provided to the Bank, an objection dated 24.07.2019
(Annexure P-5) was made by the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar, alleging
therein, that the possession of his land, i.e. land bearing Khasra
No.1153/1 admeasuring 2500 square feet, which is, however, neither a
disputed piece of land, nor was mortgaged with the Bank for the
security of the alleged loan amount availed by said borrowers, is being
given to the Bank.
18. It, however, appears that the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, vide its
order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Revenue Case No. 51-A/70/2016-17
has held that the petitioner is not the owner of the alleged land as his
vendors, i.e. Rambagas, Nand Kumar and Ajay Kumar, have no
alienable interest over it, as the predecessors-in-interest of theirs,
namely Rambati W/o Panchu had already sold the alleged land to one
Shivratan Nema under the registered deed of sale dated 03.06.1981,
as such, they have no right to alienate the same again to the
petitioner’s father by executing the registered deed of sale dated
03.11.2008. It observed further that the vendors of the petitioner’s
father while showing the Plot No.28 to be the part of Khasra No.1153/1
had sold the same, whereas the alleged plot, i.e. Plot No.28 was, in
fact, the part of the Khasra No.1169 (Old Khasra No.168/17),
purchased by the said borrowers, namely, Prakash Samantkar and A.
Surya Narayan and that by observing as such, a direction was issued
for removal of the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar from the alleged land, i.e.
Khasra No.1169, Plot No.28, admeasuring 2500 square feet.
19. The aforesaid observation of the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar,
holding that the alleged registered deed of sale dated 03.11.2008,
10
based upon which, he (petitioner) acquired his valid right, title and
interest over the land bearing Khasra No.1153/1 admeasuring 2500
square feet of Plot No.28 was executed without any authority of its
vendors and who sold it while showing it to be the part of the Khasra
No.1153/1, though was the part of Khasra No.1169 (Old Khasra
No.168/17), is apparently beyond his jurisdiction, as the question of
title could be determined only by the competent Civil Court having its
territorial jurisdiction. It is to be seen at this juncture, the observation
made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Kaliram
Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in (2009) Vol. 2
MPHT 1 (CG), wherein it has been observed at paragraphs 9, 10, 12
and 14 as under :-
9. “In the present case, admittedly the ownership of title of the
petition scheduled land is in dispute as the property stands in the
name of the petitioner by virtue of purchase. However, the
respondent No. 4 – brother of the petitioner disputes the title on the
ground that it was a joint HUF property as the same was
purchased by the father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4
in the name of the petitioner as the petitioner alone was major at
the relevant time. On perusal of the order dated 31-5-2005
(Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the
orders dated 14-7-2003 (Annexure P-3) and 24-12-2003
(Annexure P-4) passed by the Courts below, it appears that the
authorities have decided the dispute with regard to the title also
which is beyond their jurisdiction.
10. Section 5(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that
the “Revenue Court” under any local law may entertain suits or
other proceedings relating to the rent, revenue or profits of land
used for agricultural purposes, but does not include a Civil Court
having original jurisdiction under this Code to try such suits or
proceedings as being suits or proceedings of a civil nature and the
11Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to try and pass a decree on the
issue.
12. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Shri G. P. Singh,
former Chief Justice, M.P. High Court, Tenth Edition, Page 681,
which reads:
“There is a strong presumption that Civil Courts have
jurisdiction to decide all questions of civil nature. The
exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is therefore not to be
readily inferred and such exclusion must either be “explicitly
expressed or clearly implied”. “It is a principle by no means to
be whittled down” and has been referred to as a “fundamental
rule”. As a necessary corollary of this rule provisions excluding
jurisdiction of Civil Courts and provisions conferring
jurisdiction on authorities and Tribunals other than Civil Courts
are strictly construed. The existence of jurisdiction in Civil
Courts to decide questions of civil nature being the general
rule and exclusion being an exception, the burden of proof to
show that jurisdiction is excluded in any particular case is on
the party raising such a contention”.
14. In the identical situation, a Division Bench of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bibi Bai (Mst.) v. Habib Khan
and Ors. 1991 RN 97 (High Court), held that ‘the Tehsildar has to
retain seisin of the application presented u/s 178 of the Code and
direct the applicant to approach the Civil Court within three months
to get the question of title decided.”
20. In view of the principles laid down herein-above, it is, thus, evident that
if there is a dispute regarding the execution of a document, or the right
and title of a person to execute a document, then the same could be
determined only by the Civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction and,
the Revenue Courts’ have no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to decide the
title of the person concerned. In view thereof, the aforesaid observation
made by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, thus, held to be without
its jurisdiction and cannot be upheld from the stretch of any
imagination.
21. It is to be seen further that the aforesaid proceedings, carried out by
12
the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar, was done in exercise of the
powers enumerated under Section 125 of the Code, 1959, though not
mentioned specifically therein. Therefore, under such circumstances, it
cannot be said that the appeal preferred against the said order of the
Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar before the Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Durg under Section 44 (1) of the Code, 1959, was not
maintainable, as observed by the Appellate Revenue Authorities.
22. Moreover, a specific direction issued by the Tribunal vide its order
dated 05.01.2017, mentioned herein-above, is, however, not found to
be complied with by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar and instead,
the question of title with regard to the alleged land was rather
determined beyond its jurisdiction. The order dated 23.09.2019 as
passed by the said authority, was, therefore, not sustainable in the eye
of law, yet the same has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue) vide its order dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed in
Revenue Appeal No.26/A-70/2019-20 and the Commissioner, Durg
Division, Durg vide its order impugned dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-
1) passed in Case No.288/A-70/2019-20.
23. In view of the aforesaid background, the order impugned dated
17.12.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Durg
Division, Durg in Case No.288/A-70/2019-20, affirming the orders
dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-8) and 23.09.2019 (Annexure P-6)
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg and the
Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar in Revenue Appeal No.26/A-70/2019-
20 and in Revenue Case No.51/A-70/2016-17, respectively, is hereby
quashed and, the matter is remitted back to the Additional Tahsildar,
13
Bhilai Nagar, with a direction to decide the same in accordance with
law and the parties present over here through their respective counsels
are directed to remain present before the said authority i.e. the
Additional Tahsildar, Bhilai Nagar on 11.08.2025.
24. The petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Tumane
