@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.7547 of 2011 PETITIONER: Radhe Shyam AganNai, son of Shri K.L. Agarwal, aged about 45 years, resident of Chandni Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: Lal Sai, son ofJharu Pradhan. Ghurau, son of Lal Sai Pradhan. Dinbandhu, son of Lal Sai Pradhan. Shyam, son of Lal Sai Pradhan. No.1 to 4 are residents of Village Karrajor (Tadola), Tehsii Pusour, District Raigarh. 5. Anantram, son of Bhuvneshwar. 6. Vishnu, son of Bhuvneshwar. No.5 & 6 are residents of Village Tetla, Tehsil Pusour, District Raigarh (CG) {Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. B.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (12-1 2-201 1) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 25—11-2011 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, in Appeal Case No.120/A—6/2011-12, affirming the order dated 4-11-2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh in Appeal Case No.44/A—6/2008-09, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has reversed the order of mutation dated 29-11-2006 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Raigarh in Revenue Case No.35/A-6/2005-2006, in favour of the petitioner herein. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned, copies of other orders and documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is bona tide purchaser and has purchased the suit property from co-owners . 2 @ of the Iand namely respondent No.5 Anantram and respondent No.6 Vishnu, though the sale deed has not been executed by third owner Yashoda Bai i.e. predecessor-in-title of respondents No.1 to 4 herein. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of mutation, revenue authorities are required to see the prima facie Government document and they cannot decide the title in person. The petitioner is bona nde purchaser and by reversing the order of the Naib Tahsildar, both the revenue Courts have committed illegality. . Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs v. Tajuddin (Dead) Through LRs1 in which the Supreme Court has held that “the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue being limited, no title could have been conferred upon the plaintiff. Title in or over a land will depend upon the statutory provisions. A title does not remain in vacuum. lt has to be determined keeping in view the law operating in the held viz. religious law or statutory law or customary law, etc. Revenue authorities of the State are concerned with revenue. Mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The statutory rules must be held to be operating in a limited sense. The provisions of Rule 13 of the Matmi Rules laying down a rule of primogeniture Will have no application in relation to the offices of sajjadanashin and mutawalli, which are ofhces of different nature. They are stricto sensu not hereditary in nature. lt is well settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a question of title". . Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of M.P. State v. Begum Suraiya Rashidz in which the High Court has held that a serious question of title should not be decided in mutation proceedings, mutation proceedings are for the purpose of keeping the record up to date. 6. As per the order dated 25-11-2011 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, previously, civil suit was tiled by Yashoda Bai before the Court of 4‘“ Civil Judge Class—ll, Raipur vide Civil Suit No.123A/91 against respondents No.5 & 6 herein who had earlier executed sale deed in favour of one Vishnu Kolta, the said civil suit has been decreed and Yashoda Bai was declared owner of 0.750 hectare of land bearing Khasra No.265/1. As per the sale deed, again respondents 1 (2008) 8 scc 12 2 2005 RN 246 = 2005(2) CRN (MPHC) 6 3 C9 No.5 & 6 have executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner relating to Khasra No.265/1 area 0.358 hectare. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the trial Court has declared Yashoda Bai owner of area 0.750 hectare out of Khasra No.261 area 0.150 hectare, Khasra No.265 area 1.696 hectare, Khasra No.106/2 area 0.405 hectare. Therefore, still respondents No.5 & 6 are co—owners of the property. 8. The order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur reveals that Yashoda Bai was owner of the aforesaid property and it has been declared by the civil court, thereafter, again respondents No.5 & 6 have executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. Considering the aforesaid ground, the Court below has allowed the appeal and quashed the mutation proceeding. 9. Names of the persons who have acquired right may be mutated in accordance with Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. As held by the Supreme Court in Faqruddin’s case (supra) and in Begum Suraiya’s case (supra), the revenue courts are not authorized to declare or confer title and mutation takes place only for certain purposes. 10.Considering the rival claim, especially the judgment of civil court, the revenue courts have dismissed the application tiled on behalf of the petitioner for mutation. Although the revenue courts are not having jurisdiction to decide the title, but still mutation order can be made in favour of the persons who have acquired right in accordance with Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. ln accordance with Section 111 of the Code, 1959, civil courts have jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the parties. In these circumstances, the petitioner herein is still at liberty to approach civil court. By dismissing the appeal, the revenue court has not committed any illegality requiring any interference. With this observation, the petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Soma /r/u, . 11.Consequently, l.A.No.1 stands disposed of. ‘M/' l/ Sal- Y. S“gt“‘$ .‘ 5“oge