[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Kishore Doultani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 April, 2026
1
NAFR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
Digitally signed
by VISHAKHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BEOHAR
WPC No. 1419 of 2021
1 - Kishore Doultani S/o Shri Bhimandas Doultani Aged About 39 Years
Resident Of C-53, Sector-4, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Jagdish Doultani S/o Shri Bhimandas Doultani Aged About 47 Years
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Doultani, R/o C-53, Sector-4,
Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Executive Officer, 2nd
Floor, Bhaktamata Karma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer,
2nd Floor, Bhaktamata Karma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Chief Executive Officer Raipur Development Authority, 2nd
Floor, Bhaktamata Karma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Revenue Officer (Tehsildar) Raipur Development Authority 2nd
2
Floor, Bhaktamata Karma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 1507 of 2021
1 - Jyoti Doultani W/o Shri Anil Doultani Aged About 47 Years Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Doultani, Aged About 46 Years S/o Shri
Bhimandas Doultani, R/o C-53, Sector-4, Devendra Nagar, Raipur
Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Rekha Doultani W/o Shri Motilal Doultani Aged About 41 Years R/o
C-53, Sector-4, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Executive Officer, Raipur
Development Authority, 2nd Floor Bhaktamata Karma Commercial
Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Raipur Development Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer,
Raipur Development Authority, 2nd Floor Bhaktamata Karma
Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Chief Executive Officer Raipur Development Authority, 2nd
Floor Bhaktamata Karma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar,
Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - The Revenue Officer (Tehsildar), Raipur Development Authority, 2nd
Floor Bhaktamata Karma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar,
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners :- Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate
For Respondents No. 2 to 4 :- Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
20.04.2026
1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in both the
cases, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. The present petitions are directed against the impugned order
dated 04.09.2020 passed by respondent No. 4, whereby the
application preferred by the petitioners for mutation of their
names in respect of Plot No. 37 situated at Devendra Nagar (New
Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex), Raipur, has been rejected.
3. WPC No. 1419 of 2021 (Kishore Doultani vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and others) has been taken as lead case in order to
decide the issues involved in these matters.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent authorities had
initially allotted part of Plot Nos. 36 and 37 to the original
allottees. Thereafter, on an application for transfer, the competent
authority communicated terms and conditions vide letter dated
22.12.2018, requiring deposit of transfer fee. The petitioners, after
complying with all conditions including payment of transfer fee
amounting to Rs. 23,63,894/-, were granted permission and No
Objection Certificate on 08.01.2019 for transfer of Plot No. 37.
Subsequently, a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2019 was
executed in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners
submitted applications dated 25.03.2019 and 28.11.2019 before
the respondent authorities seeking mutation of their names in the
records. Since no action was taken, the petitioners earlier
approached this Court in WPC No. 995 of 2020, which was
disposed of on 20.05.2020 directing the respondent authorities to
decide the petitioners' application. However, respondent No. 4, by
the impugned order dated 04.09.2020, rejected the application for
mutation on the ground that a complaint has been lodged with
respect to the said plot.
5. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the present writ
petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of
prayer made by the petitioners in both the petitions, however, in
sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and
identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 1419 of 2021 (Kishore
Doultani vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) are quoted
hereinbelow in order to consider both the cases and to decide the
same.
"10.1 That, the Honourable Court may kindly
be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders quashing the impugned order
dated 04.09.2020 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed
by the respondent no.4 and direct the
respondent no. 2 to 4 mutate the petitioners
name as the allottee of the plot no. 37 in the
records of the respondent Authority.
10.2 Any other relief(s) may also be given to
the petitioners, which this Honourable court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case"
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
order is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended
that the petitioners have purchased the property through a
registered sale deed after obtaining due permission and No
Objection from the competent authority and after depositing the
entire transfer fee as required. It is further submitted that till date
neither the permission granted to the petitioners has been
revoked nor the registered sale deed has been cancelled by any
competent authority. Learned counsel submits that the sole
ground for rejection, i.e., pendency of a complaint, is wholly
irrelevant and extraneous, as no proceedings have been initiated
against the petitioners nor any adjudication has taken place. It is
also contended that the respondents, having permitted the
transfer and accepted the transfer fee, are estopped from denying
mutation of the petitioners' names. It is further submitted that the
action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and
300-A of the Constitution of India, as the petitioners are being
deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property without
authority of law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and that
certain complaints have been received with respect to the plot in
question. It is submitted that in view of such complaints, the
respondent authority deemed it appropriate not to proceed with
mutation at this stage. It is further submitted that mutation does
not confer title and is only an entry for revenue purposes, and
therefore, the petitioners are not prejudiced.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have purchased the subject
property through a registered sale deed after obtaining due
permission and No Objection from the competent authority and
upon payment of the requisite transfer fee. It is also not in dispute
that the permission granted in favour of the petitioners has not
been revoked till date. However, the stand taken by the
respondents reveals that the records relating to the subject
property are presently seized and under scrutiny before the
Economic Offences Wing (EOW), thereby disabling the
respondent authorities from taking any conclusive decision on the
application for mutation.
10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by adjudicating
the matter on merits at this stage, particularly when the
respondent authorities themselves have expressed their inability
to act due to non-availability of records. At the same time, the
rights of the petitioners cannot be left in abeyance indefinitely. A
balanced approach is therefore required so as to safeguard the
interest of both parties. It is well settled that mutation is a
consequential act and the same is required to be considered by
the competent authority on the basis of available records. If such
records are under lawful custody of an investigating agency,
appropriate steps may be taken for securing access to the same
for limited purposes, in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the
directions that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the
respondent authorities by filing a fresh/appropriate application for
mutation along with all relevant documents. The respondent
authorities, if required, may take appropriate steps to approach
the concerned Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for obtaining
access to the relevant records for the limited purpose of
adjudication of the mutation application. Thereafter, the Economic
Offences Wing (EOW), upon such request, shall consider the
same in accordance with law and may permit inspection or
temporary use of documents, as deemed appropriate.
12. Upon availability of the records, the respondent authorities
shall consider and decide the petitioners' application for mutation
strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and
speaking order.
13. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha
