[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Dipti Agrawal vs Sanjay Kumar Nachrani on 1 April, 2026

                                                               1




                                                                                     2026:CGHC:15171
                                                                                                NAFR
            Digitally signed
            by INDRAJEET
INDRAJEET
SAHU
            SAHU
            Date: 2026.04.04
                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
            13:20:57 +0530


                                                    WP227 No. 377 of 2026


                    1 - Dipti Agrawal W/o Omprakash Agrawal Aged About 43 Years (Aadhar No.
                    - 2577 0466 5296), Presently Residing At House No. 240/2, Kalash Bhavan,
                    Old Civil Line, Side Of Old Rest House, Ward No. 14, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil
                    And District- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
                                                                              ... Petitioner(s)
                                                      Versus
                    1 - Sanjay Kumar Nachrani S/o Late Mohanlal Nachrani Aged About 51 Years
                    R/o House No. 11, Jal Vihar Colony, Ravigram, Raipur, Tahsil And District
                    Raipur, C.G.
                    2 - Bahurlal Sahu S/o Late Chhedilal Sahu Aged About 54 Years Presently
                    Residing At House No. 175, Ward No. 19, Station Para, Temri, Deopuri,
                    Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Pin- 492015, C.G.
                    3 - Yatiram Sahu S/o Late Chhedilal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o House
                    No. 35, Navoday Staff Colony, Mana Camp, Ward No. 8, Mana Camp, Mana,
                    Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G.
                    4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G.
                                                                                 ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Shri Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate and Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Shri Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate.

                               For State               :     Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer.

                                      Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
                                                        Order on Board
                    01.04.2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated

09.03.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Circuit

Court at Raipur (in short, the Board of Revenue) in Revenue Case

No.RN/14/R/A-6/4008/2025 whereby the revenue revision filed by the

respondent No.1 was allowed and the order dated 06.10.2025 passed

by the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, in Case No.100065/A-

6/2024-25 and the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the Additional

Collector, Raipur in Appeal Case No.202501113000047A/6(A)/2024-25

have been set aside and that the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, in Revenue Case

No.202306111000251/A-6(A)/2022-23 has been affirmed.

2. In the dispute before the revenue courts, the present petitioner Dipti

Agrawal not a party. She filed the present writ petition challenging the

impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue

along with an application for grant of leave to challenge the order dated

09.03.2026 (IA No.01/2026) claiming that she has purchased the suit

property from the respondent No.2&3 through the registered sale deed

dated 10.11.2025 and despite being made her as party non applicant

before there, the impugned order has been passed and thereby her

legal right is prejudiced and therefore she may be permitted to

challenge the order dated 09.03.2026.

3. The prayer made by the petitioner for grant of leave depends upon the

facts of the case as to whether her right would be prejudiced by the

order impugned and therefore this court deem it appropriate to first

consider the merits of the case and then to decide the application of

the petitioner (IA No.01/2026).

4. The factual background of the case are that, the subject land Khasra

No.311/10 area 0.352 Hect. and part of Khasra No.311 area 0.024

Hect. total area 0.376 Hect. situated at village Temri, PH No.115, RI

Circle Raipur (1), Tehsil and District Raipur, was initially owned by the

respondent No.2&3. The subject land was sold to one Sangeeta

Agrawal through registered sale deed dated 29.06.1991. The

respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar Nachrani purchased the subject land

from Sangeeta Agrawal through registered sale deed dated 07.02.1997

which was executed by her power of attorney Salik Ram Barnwal. At

that time the name of respondent No.1 was mutated in the revenue

records and he came into possession thereof. Subsequently, on a

particular year, by mistake, the name of respondent No.1 could not

reflect in the Khasra roster and it was reflected in the name of Smt.

Sangeeta Agrawal who was the seller of the land to respondent No.1.

When the respondent No.1 came to know about this fact, he made an

application before the SDO Raipur under Section 115 of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for correction of the record

saying that he purchased the subject land through registered sale deed

dated 07.02.1997, his name was also mutated earlier, however, by

mistake the name of seller Smt. Sangeeta Agrawal is shown in the

online portal which requires correction. The SDO called an enquiry

report from Tehsildar Raipur who submitted his enquiry report on

27.08.2024 and then the SDO issued a general notice and called

objections, however, no objections were received and then a report

from the concerned Halka Patwari was also obtained. The respondent

No.2&3 contested the application, however, after considering the entire

evidence produced by the parties the SDO Raipur passed its order on

19.12.2024 and allowed the application of the respondent No.1 with a

direction to correct the record in the name of respondent No.1 Sanjay

Kumar Nachrani.

5. The order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the SDO Raipur was

challenged by the respondent No.2 & 3 by filing their appeal before the

Additional Collector, Raipur, in which he challenged the execution of

sale deed in favour of Sangeeta Agrawal which was executed on

28.09.1991 and state that since the sale deed executed in favour of

Sangeeta Agrawal itself if void, she was not having any right or title

over the subject land and was not competent to alienate to the

respondent No.1 in the year 1997 and they are the title and possession

holder of the subject land. They are also claiming that despite having

title and possession over the subject land, they have not been heard

before passing the order by the SDO. Therefore, the order passed by

the SDO is bad in law and the same may be set aside.

6. After considering the submissions made by the parties, the Additional

Collector Raipur vide its order dated 09.07.2025 allowed the appeal

filed by the respondents No.2&3 and the order passed by the SDO

dated 19.12.2024 was set aside holding that before passing the order,

the respondent No.2&3 i.e. the appellants before the Additional

Collector, were not heard.

7. The order dated 09.07.2025 was further challenged by the respondent

No.1 before the Commissioner Raipur Division by filing second appeal.

The Second Appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was dismissed by the

Commissioner vide its order dated 06.10.2025. Further, the order dated

06.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner was challenged by the

respondent No.1 before the Board of Revenue by filing revenue

revision which was allowed vide impugned order dated 09.03.2026 and

the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur as well as

Commissioner Raipur Division were set aside and the order passed by

the SDO Raipur is affirmed.

8. During the pendency of revenue revision before the Board of Revenue,

the respondent No.2&3 alienated the subject land to the present

petitioner through registered sale deed dated 10.11.2025 and thus she

is challenging the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Board of

Revenue on the ground that she was not made as party non applicant

in the proceeding before the Board of Revenue and her right would be

prejudiced. One another facts of the case is that, the respondents

No.2&3 have filed a civil suit before Second Additional Judge to the

Court of First Civil Judge Junior Division, Raipur, for declaration of title

and permanent injunction vide Civil Suit No.492-A/2024 which is also

pending.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the subject land. She has

substantive right and title over the property and without hearing them

as party non applicant before the Board of Revenue, the impugned

order has been passed. The petitioner was totally unaware about

pendency of litigation between the parties and she bonafidely

purchased the subject land from respondent No.2&3. Before the Board

of Revenue, the respondent No.2&3 made an application on

27.01.2026 that they sold the subject land to the petitioner and thus the

Board of Revenue was under obligation to implead the petitioner as

party non applicant in the proceeding and in absence of rightful owner

of the property, there may not be any effective adjudication. The

impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue completely dehorse

the provisions of Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code which provides

that revision application cannot be decided without hearing the

interested party. In the present case, the petitioner neither made as

party non applicant nor served with any notice and she was completely

deprived to put her case before the Board of Revenue. After its

purchase, the name of petitioner has been mutated in the revenue

records and thus she being the necessary party to the proceeding

should have been impleaded as party non applicant and provided the

opportunity of being heard. The petitioner would refer page 67 of the

petition by which the Commissioner Raipur Division has observed in its

order that the issue of title involved in the case and without there being

any adjudication with respect to title of the respective parties, decided

by competent civil suit, the order with respect to correction of revenue

records cannot be passed. In the present case, the respondent No.2&3

were the title and possession holder of the property. They are

challenging the sale deed in favour of Sangeeta Agrawal and

subsequent sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1. Thus, the title

of respondent No.1 itself is disputed and revenue record cannot be

corrected in his name. Therefore, the application for grant of leave to

challenge the order dated dated 09.03.2026 may be allowed and the

impugned order dated 09.03.2026 may be set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 on advance

copy would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the

petitioner and have submitted that the respondent No.1 purchased the

subject land through registered sale deed dated 07.02.1997 from its

owner Sangeeta Agrawal who was the purchaser of subject land from

its owner. Till 2024 the sale deed dated 29.06.1991 executed in favour

of Sangeeta Agrawal and sale deed dated 07.02.1997 executed in

favour of respondent No.1 was not challenged by the respondent

No.2&3. Immediately after purchasing the subject land by respondent

No.1 through registered sale deed on 07.02.1997 his name was

mutated in the revenue records and he continued in its possession. It is

only for a single year when by mistake the name of respondent No.1

could not shown in the web portal, he made his application for

correction of records.

The respondent No.2&3 having fully known about earlier

transaction, only to get the benefit of initial mutation in their names,

raised the dispute for extraneous consideration. Throughout the

proceeding from the court of SDO up to Board of Revenue, the

respondent No.2&3 have duly contested their case and aware about all

the proceedings and facts. During pendency of the revision filed by the

respondent No.1 before the Board of Revenue, he sold the subject

land to the petitioner and thus the transfer in favour of petitioner

petitioner is covered by doctrine of lis pendese. When the respondent

No.2&3 themselves have prosecuted a civil suit filed on 14.11.2024

before the competent civil court for declaration of title and permanent

injunction, they themselves considered that their title is in cloud, yet

they alienated the subject land to the petitioner. The petitioner also

having well acquainted with the litigation between the parties entered

into transaction and hold the liability of the respondent No.2&3. She is

stepping into the shoes of respondent No.2&3 and therefore she

cannot be said that she was the necessary party before the Board of

Revenue as the respondent No.2&3 were duly contesting their case.

He would further submit that Section 55 of Transfer of Property Act cost

an obligation upon the buyer and seller of the land to get it verified

before its transfer. The SDO has rightly considered that the sale deed

executed in favour of respondent No.1 on 07.02.1997 was rightful sale

by its seller Sangeeta Agrawal and has passed his order and also

considered that the name of respondent No.1 was already mutated and

by mistake the name of Sangeeta Agrawal was shown in the web

portal. Further, when the respondent No.2&3 have already sold the

land to Sangeeta Agrawal in the year 1991 itself, they were not the

necessary party in the proceeding before the SDO, yet the Collector

has allowed their appeal holding that they have not been provided any

opportunity of hearing which itself is erroneous. Therefore, the order

passed by the Board of Revenue is based under the proper

appreciation of material available before it which does not suffer from

any infirmity. The petitioner is stepping into the shoes of the respondent

No.2&3 who is lis pendense purchaser and bound by the ultimate

outcome of the adjudication. The respondent No.2&3 have not

challenged the impugned order. She was not the bonafide purchaser

and after knowing full well about the entire transaction she entered into

transaction therefore, no relief can be granted to her to challenge the

order dated 09.03.2026 and by dismissing her application, the writ

petition may also be dismissed. In support of his contention, reliance

has been placed in case of T.G. Ashok Kumar Vs. Govindmmal &

Another, 2010(14)SCC 370.

11. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material

annexed with the petition.

12. The proceeding arose on the application moved the respondent No.1

before the SDO for correction of record. It was claimed by the

respondent No.41 that he purchased the subject land through

registered sale deed dated 07.02.1997 from its owner Sangeeta

Agrawal. At the time when the property was purchased by him, the

name of Sangeeta Agrawal was mutated in the revenue records. After

its purchase, his name was mutated in revenue record which continued

since then. When the application for correction of record was made by

respondent No.1 before the SDO, he called the report from Tehsildar

Raipur, who submitted his report on 27.08.2024 and after considering

the entire transaction, recommended for correction of record in favour

of respondent No.1 observing that the respondent No.1 had purchased

the subject land through registered sale deed dated 06.02.1997

(07.02.1997) and it was also considered in the recommendation by the

Tehsildar that after its purchase on 07.02.1997 by the respondent No.1,

his name was mutated in the revenue records through mutation No.72

vide order dated 19.03.1997 and Rin Pustika was also issued in his

favour on 15.07.1997. It is only by mistake of the concerned Halka

Patwari at the time of entry in Khasra roster, the subject land was

shown in the name of other holder.

13. From the order of the SDO dated 19.12.2024 it transpires that the

respondent No.2 Bahurlal Sahu filed his reply before the SDO and

denied execution of any sale deed with respect to subject land and

then the dispute arose between the parties which traveled up to Board

of Revenue. During pendency of revision filed by the respondent No.1

before the Board of Revenue, the respondent No.2&3 filed their civil

suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land

on 14.11.2024 before the Second Additional Judge to the court of First

Civil Judge Senior Division, Raipur which was registered as Civil Suit

No.492-A/2024. When the respondent No.2&3 are well aware about

the transaction made in favour of Sangeeta Agrawal in the year, 1991,

the transaction made by her in favour of respondent No.1 in the year,

1997 and pendency of revenue proceeding uptill the board of revenue,

he ought to have disclosed the said fact to the petitioner who is the

purchaser of subject land. Further, the petitioner was also under

obligation to get the record of the land verified before its purchase or

registration of deed. Section 55 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

impose obligations upon the buyer and seller of the land under which

the petitioner was to inquire about the land.

14. When the respondent No.1&2 themselves considered their title over

the subject land is in cloud, they are prosecuting the suit for title and

permanent injunction, they themselves have not the absolute title

alienable title, yet they sold the subject land to the petitioner. The

petitioner who purchased the subject land from respondent No.1&2

during pendency of revision before the Board of Revenue, is stepping

into the shoes of its seller who duly contested their case up to the

Board of Revenue. When the petitioner purchased the subject land in

lis pendense, she is bound by ultimate outcome of the litigation and

cannot claim any separate right of her own, but her right depends upon

the rights of seller of the land.

15. In Rajender Singh & Others Vs. Santa Singh & Others, 1973(2)SCC

705, Hon. Supreme Court in para 14 & 15 held as under:

"14. The background of the provision set out above was indicated by one of us (Beg, J.) in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami & Ors.(1). There, the following definition of lis pendens from Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. LIV, p. 570) was cited :

"Lis pendens literally means a pending suit, and the doctrine of lis pendens has been defined as the jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment therein".

It was observed there -

"Expositions of the doctrine indicate that the need for it arises from the very nature of the jurisdiction of Courts and their control over the subject-matter of litigation so that par- ties litigating before it may not remove any part of the subject matter outside the power of the Court to deal with it and thus make the proceedings infructuous."

15. The doctrine of lis pendens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of a court, in which a dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending, by private dealings which may remove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the court's power to decide a pending dispute of frustrate its decree.. Alienees acquiring any immovable property during a litigation over it are held to be bound, by an application of the doctrine, by the decree passed in the suit even though they may not have been impleaded in it. The whole object of the doctrine of Its pendens is to subject parties to the litigation as well as others, who seek to acquire rights in immovable property which are the subject matter of a litigation, to the power and jurisdiction of the Court so as to prevent the object of a pending action from being defeated."

16. In case of T.G. Ashok Kumar (Supra), the Hon. Supreme Court has

observed as under :

"12. In Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami (AIR 1973 SC 569) this court held that the purpose of Section 52 of the Act is not to defeat any just and equitable claim, but only to subject them to the authority of the court which is dealing with the property to which claims are put forward. This court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404 held that Section 52 of the Act does not declare a pendente lite transfer by a party to the suit as void or illegal, but only makes the pendente lite purchaser bound by the decision in the pending litigation.

13. The principle underlying Section 52 is clear. If during the pendency of any suit in a court of competent jurisdiction which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is directly and specifically in question, such property cannot be transferred by any party to the suit so as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such suit. If ultimately the title of the pendente lite

transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred property, the transferee's title will not be affected.

19. It is necessary to refer to the hardship, loss, anxiety and unnecessary litigation caused on account of absence of a mechanism for prospective purchasers to verify whether a property is subject to any pending suit or a decree or attachment. At present, a prospective purchaser can easily find out about any existing encumbrance over a property either by inspection of the Registration Registers or by securing a certificate relating to encumbrances (that is copies of entries in the Registration Registers) from the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar under Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908. But a prospective purchaser has no way of ascertaining whether there is any suit or proceeding pending in respect of the property, if the person offering the property for sale does not disclose it or deliberately suppresses the information. As a result, after parting with the consideration (which is many a time the life time savings), the purchaser gets a shock of his life when he comes to know that the property purchased by him is subject to litigation, and that it may drag on for decades and ultimately deny him title to the property. The pendente lite purchaser will have to wait for the litigation to come to an end or he may have to take over the responsibility of conducting the litigation if the transferor loses interest after the sale. The purchaser may also face objections to his being impleaded as a party to the pending litigation on the ground that being a lis pendens purchaser, he is not a necessary party. All these inconveniences, risks, hardships and misery could be avoided and the property litigations could be reduced to a considerable extent, if there is some satisfactory and reliable method by which a prospective purchaser can ascertain whether any suit is pending (or whether the property is subject to any decree or attachment) before he decides to purchase the property."

17. So far as impleadment of petitioner and issuance of notice to her is

concerned, true it is Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code provides

that the parties should be heard in revision before passing any order,

yet, in the present case the respondent No.2&3 were the party and

during pendecy of revision they sold the subject land to the petitioner

as has been held earlier that the respondent No.2&3 were contesting

their case before the Board of Revenue and during pendency of

proceeding they sold the subject land and the lis pendense purchaser

stepping in the shoes of its seller, are not the necessary party to the

proceeding and she was bound by the ultimate outcome of the

proceeding. One cannot presume that she purchased the property from

the respondent No.2&3 for such a huge amount of consideration of Rs.