Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45153-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 655 of 2025 1. Friska Xaxa W/do Late Istanis Xaxa Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Reeta Xaxa D/o Late Istanis Xaxa Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ankit Xaxa S/o Late Kamal Xaxa Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 4. Amiya Xaxa D/o Late Kamal Xaxa Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5. Ashok Xaxa S/o Late Istanis Xaxa Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh 6. Juleta Xaxa Wd/o Late Kamal Xaxa Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Revenue New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Collector District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.09.04 18:35:52 +0530 2 3. 4. 5. Sub Divisional Officer (R) Patthalgaon District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh Tahsildar Tahsil Patthalgaon District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Patthalgaon District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh 6. Pratima Xaxa D/o Late Suresh Xaxa Aged About 25 Years Uraon By Caste R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil Patthalgaon District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 7. Francis Xaxa S/o Late Jwakim Xaxa Uraon By Caste R/o Village Peethaama Tahsil Patthalgaon District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh 8. Premsheela Xaxa D/o Late Jwakim Aged About 42 Years Uraon By Caste R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil Patthalgaon District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, 9. Agustin Xaxa S/o Late Jwakim Xaxa Aged About 30 Years Uraon By Caste R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil Patthalgaon District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh 10. Rajesh Xaxa S/o Late Jwakim Xaxa Aged About 25 Years Uraon By Caste R/o Village Peethaama, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh, 11. Marsel Xaxa S/o Late Barnabas Xaxa Aged About 75 Years Caste - Uraon R/o Village Peethaama Tahsil- Patthalgaon District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh Presently Resident At- Namuna Ghar Post- Officer Dundas Point Bo, Town, Ferragunj District- South Andaman, Andaman Nicobar Island Pin- 744206 ...Respondent(s) For Appellants For Respondent/State : : For Respondents No. 6 to 10 :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Mr. A.N. Bhakta & Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates. 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 04 .09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 6 to 10. 2. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 134 of 2023 (Pratima Xaxa & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby
Decision
the writ petition preferred by the respondents No. 6 to 10/writ petitioners have been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the disputed land bearing Khasra Nos. 403/3 (0.2510 ha), 421/3 (2.0230 ha), and 474/2/ च (7.1230 ha), totaling 9.3970 hectares, situated in Village Peethaama, Patwari Halka No. 333, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.), is joint family property. The land was purchased from the joint family income on 16.04.1952, and for convenience, the sale deed was executed solely in the name of Sohrayee (grandfather of the appellants herein), due to the ill health of Barnabas (grandfather of respondents No. 6 to 10/writ petitioners). Subsequently, revenue records were corrected to include the name of Barnabas, but his name was later removed on the objection of Istanis, son 4 of Sohrayee, vide Revenue Case No. 2A-6/1986-87. Challenging this removal, Barnabas filed Civil Suit No. 9-A/1987 before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh, which was decreed in his favour on 22.12.1989, declaring his title over the suit land. Due to lack of legal awareness, no mutation proceedings were initiated at that time. The respondents No. 6 to 10/writ petitioners subsequently filed for mutation based on the said decree, which the Naib Tahsildar allowed on 22.03.2022 in Revenue Case No. 202201031000009/89/Year 2021-22. However, on appeal preferred by the appellants herein, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) passed the impugned order dated 05.12.2022, holding that the mutation application was barred by limitation and that the Naib Tahsildar’s order exceeded the scope of the decree. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that against the order passed by the SDO, an alternative statutory remedy was available under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, namely, a second appeal before the Commissioner. Thus, the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition on merits while ignoring the availability of such alternative remedy. He further submitted that respondents No. 6 to 10/writ petitioners, without exhausting this remedy, directly approached this Court challenging the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the SDO, Patthalgaon, in Revenue Case No. 25/A-6 (Appeal)/2021-11 (Online No. 20220431100001). 5. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of an effective alternative remedy under the Land Revenue Code. Reliance was placed 5 on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021), wherein it was held that a writ petition may be entertained despite the existence of an alternative remedy only in exceptional cases involving: (1) a breach of fundamental rights, (2) violation of the principles of natural justice, (3) action taken without jurisdiction, or (4) a challenge to the vires of a statute or delegated legislation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that none of these exceptions was attracted in the present case, as both parties were duly heard before the SDO, and there was no breach of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 to 10/writ petitioners supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge, contending that the SDO had clearly exceeded his jurisdiction by going beyond the decree of the civil court, and that interference under Article 226 was justified. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully examined the record. 9. From the perusal of the documents on record, it is not in dispute that the appellants and private respondents are joint owners of the property in question. The property was originally purchased by their ancestors out of the income derived from the joint family property. The matter was adjudicated by the competent civil court in Civil Suit No. 9-A/1987, 6 wherein, by judgment dated 22.12.1989, the suit filed by Barnabas was decreed, and half of the property bearing Khasra Nos. 403/3, 421/3, and 474, totaling 23.22 acres, was declared to be in favour of Barnabas. This judgment and decree remained unchallenged and thus, attained finality. Pursuant thereto, the respondents No. 6 to 10/writ petitioners filed an application for mutation on 19.11.2021. The Naib Tehsildar, by order dated 12.03.2022, allowed the mutation in compliance with the decree. 10. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the SDO, who set aside the Naib Tehsildar’s order holding that the application for mutation was barred by limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 11. However, the legal position as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 12, Prem Nath Khanna v. Narinder Nath Kapoor, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 235, and Bhima Bai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import and Export Co., reported in (2019) 3 SCC 191 is that mutation entries are made only for fiscal and administrative purposes and do not confer or extinguish title. Revenue authorities cannot go behind or refuse to act upon a valid Civil Court decree. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Hetram v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) (CWP No. 5751/2010, decided on 13.10.2023) has further clarified that declaratory decrees are not subject to execution under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, and that mutation pursuant to such decrees cannot be denied on the ground of limitation. 12. In the present case, the SDO, while setting aside the Naib Tehsildar’s order, effectively adjudicated upon title and limitation — which 7 is beyond the jurisdiction of a revenue authority. The issue before him was confined to giving effect to the Civil Court decree by updating the revenue record. The application for mutation could not have been rejected on the ground of delay, since mutation proceedings are merely ministerial in nature. 13. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the SDO exceeded his jurisdiction and quashed the order dated 05.12.2022, restoring the order of the Naib Tehsildar. The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where the authority has acted without jurisdiction, as is the case here. 14. Considering the above discussion, we find no merit in this writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge warrants no interference. The parties shall, however, be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to them under law, as has been observed by the learned Single Judge. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan