Judgment on Board

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 835 of 2026 (Loknath Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein came to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 328/3 admeasuring 0.3520 hectare situated at Patwari Halka No. 00044, Village Dhurrabandha, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar, through a validly executed and registered sale deed dated 11.04.2025 from the recorded owners namely Romnath Verma, Gangotri, Prabha and Gaya Bai. Pursuant to the execution of the registered sale deed, the appellant submitted an application before the Tehsildar, Bhatapara seeking mutation of its name in the revenue records in accordance with Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'Code of 1959'). Consequently, mutation case No. CG-2025-26-136-1-122 titled Loknath Patel vs. Romnath Verma and Ors. was registered and notices were issued to the concerned parties on 22.04.2025.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that the learned Tehsildar had also issued a public advertisement dated 22.04.2025 inviting objections, if any, from interested persons with regard to the proposed mutation proceedings. However, as reflected from the Bhuiyan report downloaded from the official website of the Department of Revenue, Government of Chhattisgarh, no objections or acknowledgements were ever received from any person in relation to the mutation proceedings. The Bhuiyan report further demonstrates that no effective hearing whatsoever was conducted by the Tehsildar before passing the impugned order. He also submits that despite absence of any objection, injunction order, or stay granted by any competent Civil Court, the Tehsildar vide impugned order dated 15.07.2025 arbitrarily rejected the appellant's mutation application merely on the ground that some dispute relating to the land was pending before the Police Station/Court. It is submitted that the impugned order neither discloses particulars of any pending civil proceedings nor records any factual basis for refusing mutation. The order has thus been passed mechanically, without application of mind and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant prior to passing of the impugned order. The appellant was neither informed about the alleged dispute nor granted an opportunity to rebut the same. The action of the Tehsildar in summarily rejecting the mutation application without conducting any enquiry or hearing the appellant is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. He further submits that mutation entries in revenue records are only fiscal in nature and do not confer or extinguish title over the property. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in WPC No. 3139 of 2017, Mohan Lal Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., decided on 30.01.2018, wherein this Hon'ble Court categorically held that mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of enabling the State to collect land revenue and cannot be withheld merely because disputes regarding demarcation or title are alleged to exist. The said judgment further recognizes that Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of 1959 confer a statutory right upon a purchaser to seek mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed and corresponding statutory duty upon the revenue authorities to process such mutation.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tehsildar completely failed to appreciate the settled legal position that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate upon the validity of title or registered sale deeds. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Simted Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. Naresh, WP No. 7604 of 2014 decided on 07.05.2022, wherein it was clearly held that the Revenue Courts have no authority to question the legality of a registered sale deed and are bound to carry out mutation on the basis thereof unless the sale deed is declared invalid by a competent Civil Court. He also contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (2021 SCC OnLine SC 802), after considering a catena of judgments including Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, has reiterated that mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and are relevant only for fiscal purposes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that questions relating to title can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and not by revenue authorities. Therefore, pendency of any alleged dispute could not have been made a ground to refuse mutation in favour of the appellant on the basis of a registered sale deed.

7. It is also submitted that the State Government itself, vide notification dated 24.04.2025 issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, has conferred powers relating to mutation under Section 110 of the Code of 1959 upon the Registrar/Sub- Registrar executing the sale deed, with the object of facilitating prompt transfer and mutation of land acquired through registered documents. The impugned action of the Tehsildar is, therefore, contrary even to the policy and intent of the State Government. He further stated that the appellant, despite being a bona fide purchaser in possession of the land on the strength of a valid registered sale deed, is suffering grave prejudice due to non-mutation of its name in the revenue records. In absence of mutation, the appellant is unable to avail agricultural benefits and subsidies and is facing serious impediments in dealing with the property, causing irreparable loss and hardship.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that against the impugned order dated 15.07.2025, the appellant had approached this Hon'ble Court by filing WPC No. 835 of 2025, however the said petition came to be disposed of with liberty to avail alternative remedy before the superior revenue authority. Learned counsel submits that though alternative remedy may ordinarily be available, the present case falls squarely within the well-recognized exceptions carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107, wherein it has been held that writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite availability of alternative remedy in cases involving violation of principles of natural justice, infringement of fundamental rights, or where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction.

9. It is submitted that in the present case the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, without affording hearing to the appellant and without recording any cogent reasons. Therefore, the present appeal is maintainable and deserves to be allowed.

10. Learned counsel lastly submits that once a sale deed has been validly executed and registered, mutation in the revenue records follows as a natural administrative consequence and the revenue authorities are duty bound to carry out such mutation unless restrained by a competent Civil Court. In the absence of any injunction or declaration against the appellant's sale deed, the refusal to mutate the appellant's name is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tehsildar as well as the order passed in WPC No. 835 of 2025 deserve to be set aside and appropriate directions deserve to be issued for mutation of the appellant's name in the revenue records in accordance with law.

11. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in the present intra-Court appeal. It is submitted that the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Tehsildar is appealable under the provisions of the Code of 1959 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of availability of an efficacious statutory alternative remedy. It is further submitted that the appellant has an adequate and effective remedy before the competent revenue appellate authority, where all factual as well as legal issues can appropriately be adjudicated. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present writ appeal.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

13. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant had approached the learned Single Judge by filing WPC No. 835 of 2026 challenging the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.5/Tehsildar, whereby the mutation application preferred by the appellant came to be rejected. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the fact that the impugned order passed by the Tehsildar is appealable under the provisions of the Code of 1959, declined to entertain the writ petition and granted liberty to the appellant to avail the statutory remedy available before the superior revenue authority.

14. On due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised judicial restraint in refusing to entertain the writ petition in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. It is well settled that where a statutory alternative remedy is available under the relevant enactment, ordinarily a writ petition ought not to be entertained unless exceptional circumstances are made out. Though the appellant has attempted to contend that the present case falls within the exceptions carved out in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) and Harbanslal Sahnia (supra), however, from the material available on record, we do not find any such exceptional circumstance warranting interference by bypassing the statutory appellate forum specifically provided under the Code of 1959.

16. The appellant has an efficacious remedy of appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), where all questions including alleged violation of principles of natural justice, legality of the order passed by the Tehsildar, and the claim for mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed can appropriately be examined on facts as well as law. The appellate authority under the Code of 1959 is fully competent to consider the grievances raised by the appellant and grant appropriate relief in accordance with law.

17. We are also of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not adjudicated the matter on merits and has merely relegated the appellant to avail the alternative statutory remedy available under the Code of 1959. The liberty granted by the learned Single Judge adequately safeguards the rights and contentions of the appellant. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant by the impugned order.

18. So far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the nature of mutation proceedings and the limited scope of revenue authorities are concerned, there can be no dispute with the settled proposition of law laid down therein. However, such issues are all matters which can very well be agitated by the appellant before the competent appellate revenue authority in accordance with law. Merely because the appellant asserts that mutation is a fiscal entry would not by itself justify bypassing the statutory remedy available under the Code of 1959.

19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present appeal.

20. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that in the event the appellant prefers an appeal before the competent appellate authority under the provisions of the Code of 1959, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove.