Smt. Bilasani vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3348 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Bilasani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 June, 2025

                                      1

                      Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022




                                                                      NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
               Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

                       Reserved on 28/04/2025
                      Delivered on 30/06/2025


1 - Smt. Bilasani W/o Shri Amritlal Aged About 70 Years Caste -
Kolta, R/o Village Mohgaon, Revenue Inspector Circle Sankara,
Tahsil     Pithora,       District        Mahasamund           Chhattisgarh.


2 - Praveen Pradhan S/o Shri Chandra Pal Pradhan Aged About
45 Years R/o Village - Kishanpur, P.H. No. 31, Tahsil Pithora,
District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
                                                             ... Petitioners


                                  versus


1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya
Raipur,           District                Raipur               Chhattisgarh.


2 - Commissioner Raipur Division, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.


3 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.


4   -    Sub   Divisional      Officer     (Revenue)       Pithora,   District
                                        2

                       Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

Mahasamund                                                    Chhattisgarh.


5 - Tehsildar Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.


6 - Smt. Bhoomisuta W/o Shri Prahlad Bhoi R/o Village
Pandapara (Toshgaon), Tahsil Saraipali District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Clubpara, Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund                                                    Chhattisgarh.


7 - Smt. Satyabhama W/o Late Shri Dhaniram Caste Kolta, R/o
Village Gauriya, P.H. No. 21, Revenue Inspector Circle Sankara,
Tahsil      Pithora,       District        Mahasamund         Chhattisgarh.


8 - Gayatri Pradhan D/o Shri Chandrapal Pradhan R/o Village
Kishanpur, P.H. No. 31, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.


9 - Jaishri Pradhan D/o Shri Chandrapal Pradhan R/o Village
Kishanpur, P.H. No. 31, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.


10 - Smt. Nirbani W/o Shri Kailash Chandra Caste - Kolta, R/o
Village Saldih, Revenue Inspector Circle Sankara, Tahsil Pithora,
District                   Mahasamund                         Chhattisgarh.


11 - Smt. Saibani W/o Shri Parmanand Caste - Kolta, R/o
Village    Chaarbhata,      Tahsil    Pithora,     District   Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.


12 - Smt. Sindhulata W/o Shri Nandlal Caste Kolta, R/o Village
                                   3

                  Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

- Saraipatera, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.


13 - Smt. Saroj W/o Shri Ravilal Caster Kolta, R/o Village
Rikhadadar, Revenue Inspector Circle Sankara, Tahsil Pithora,
District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
                                                       ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioners : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

C A V Order

1. Heard.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners herein

challenging an order dated July 20, 2021, by the Additional

Commissioner, Raipur Division. This order stems from a

series of previous orders: one dated December 31, 2014, by

the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pithora, and another

dated January 9, 2014, by the Tehsildar, Pithora. The case

involves a dispute over mutation of land in Village Gauriya,

Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, based on a registered

Will executed by Vishaka. The Tehsildar initially rejected

the application but later ordered mutation in favor of all

legal heirs of Late Vishaka under Sections 109 and 110 of

the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

3. The Petitioners, being legal heirs of Late Smt. Vishaka W/o

Shri Ramkrishna, claim equal rights over ancestral

agricultural land admeasuring 7.04 hectares situated at

Village Gauriya, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, and

assert their entitlement to constitutional protections under

Part III of the Constitution, including the Right to Equality.

Respondent No. 6 filed an application for mutation under

Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue

Code, 1959, on the basis of a registered Will dated

13.02.2006 purportedly executed by Late Vishaka. The said

application pertained to mutation of land bearing Khasra

Nos. 23/1, 36, 42, 44, 55, 88, 106, 183/1, 198, 242, 280 &

293. The Learned Tehsildar, Pithora (Respondent No. 5),

after due proceedings, passed an order dated 09.01.2014

rejecting the mutation application of Respondent No. 6 and

directed that the land be mutated in the names of all legal

heirs of Late Vishaka. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent

No. 6 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Pithora. The SDO, vide order dated 31.12.2014,

allowed the appeal, set aside the Tehsildar's order, and

directed that the name of Respondent No. 6 be recorded in

the revenue records on the strength of the Will.

Subsequently, the Petitioners and other legal heirs filed an

Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur

Division. However, the said appeal was dismissed by order

dated 20.07.2021, affirming the findings of the SDO and

upholding mutation in favor of Respondent No. 6.

Challenging the legality and correctness of the orders dated

31.12.2014 and 20.07.2021, the Petitioners have

approached this Court by way of the present writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the

basis of 'Will' the Revenue Courts cannot direct for

mutation. The validity of Will is doubted as such the Civil

Courts are having jurisdiction to declare the Will after

proper appreciation of evidence in accordance with relevant

rules, also Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and

Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Revenue Court

are not having the power/jurisdiction/authority to mutate

the name of any party on the basis of Will even if the

witnesses were examined before the said court, it cannot

enter into the matter and pass the order of mutation in

favour of any person. Learned counsel for the petitioners

would further submit that the Tehsildar after appreciation

of evidence i.e. the first revenue Court has considered the

Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

entire aspect of the matter in its true perspective and has

rightly passed the order by dismissing the application for

mutation only on the basis of Will holding that it has not

been proved that the property was exclusive one and

further the property in question is an ancestral property, as

such all the parties have equal share/right on the said

property and Respondent No.6 is owner of only 1/8th part of

the ancestral property. He further submits that the SDO

(Revenue) as well as the Additional Commissioner have not

considered the vital aspect of the matter and passed the

order of mutation only on the basis of Will executed in

favour of Respondent No.6 which is palpable illegal and

liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.6

submits that the property in question was received by

Vishaka from his father as such it is an exclusive property

of her for which she executed the Will deed in favour of

Respondent No.6 and on that ground the SDO (R) as well as

Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division have passed the

well-merited order which need no interference of this Court.

It has been categorically stated that Respondent No.6 has

got her name mutated in the revenue records as she has

Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

rightly moved an application before the Tehsildar and the

same has illegally been rejected vide order dated

09.01.2014, thereafter, the same has been challenged

before the SDO (R) vide order dated 31.12.2014 and has

directed for mutation of name of Respondent No.6 on the

basis of Will deed and the order passed by the SDO (R) has

been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner vide order

dated 20.07.2021 which has rightly been passed by the

SDO (R) and Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division,

therefore, this petition is bereft of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties and

perusing the relevant documents, the core issue in this

case is whether the revenue authorities had the jurisdiction

to order the mutation of the land based on the Will and

whether the Will was validly executed and could be acted

and examined by the Revenue Courts.

7. In this regard, the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh and Others,1 is relevant. Paragraph 9 of

the judgment is reproduced herein below:

1. Reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802

Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

"In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court."

8. It is well-settled that revenue courts have limited

jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning the mutation of

land titles, but they are not authorized to determine the

validity of a Will. The validity of the Will can only be

properly adjudicated by a civil court, which has the

jurisdiction to assess the evidence and apply the relevant

provisions of law, particularly Section 63 of the Indian

Succession Act and Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act.

These Sections provide the necessary legal framework for

the proof of a Will and the examination of the witnesses to

establish its authenticity.

9. In the present case, the Tehsildar rightly dismissed the

application for mutation, as the Will had not been

sufficiently proved. The property in question is ancestral,

and therefore, under the applicable law, all legal heirs have

Writ Petition (C) No. 1776 of 2022

an equal right to the property. The SDO (Revenue) and the

Additional Commissioner, however, overlooked this vital

aspect and passed the orders based only on the Will, which

was not proved in accordance with the statutory

requirements.

10. Based on the foregoing analysis, the orders passed by the

Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated December 31, 2014

(Annexure P/2) and order dated July 20, 2021 (Annexure

P/1) by the Additional Commissioner are liable to be and

are hereby set aside. The Tehsildar's order dated January 9,

2014 (Annexure P/3), is affirmed, and the mutation shall

be carried out only in accordance with the valid proof of the

Will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and

Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No orders as to

costs.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

Saxena