Anand Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Camp Raigarh) District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

5 - The Tahsildar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). Mulchand (Dead) Through Proposed Legal Heirs Of Alleged Will Deed, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

6 - Shiv Agrawal S/o Bajrang Agrawal Through General Power Attorney, Bajrang Agrawal, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

WITH

¶14

WPC No. 438 of 2021

¶15

1 - Moolchand (Dead) Through Shiv Agrawal (Proposed Legal Testamentary Heir) S/o Bajrang Agrawal Aged About 28 Years R/o Gandhi Ganj Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

Versus

¶18

1 - Smt. Kanchan Devi (Alias Kanchan Jauje) Aged About 40 Years R/o Old Rejendra Nagar, 3/44 New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶19

--- Respondent(s)

¶20

2

¶21

WITH

¶22

WPC No. 690 of 2021

¶23

1 - Moolchand (Dead) Through Shiv Agrawal (Proposed Legal Testamentary Heir) S/o Bajrang Agrawal Aged About 28 Years R/o Gandhi Ganj Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶24

--- Petitioner(s)

¶25

Versus

¶26

1 - Gopal Das S/o Bhikhulal R/o Old Rajender Nagar, 3/44 New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶27

2 - Smt. Kamla Jauje Gopal Das R/o Old Rajender Nagar, 3/44 New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶28

--- Respondent(s)

¶29

WITH

¶30

WPC No. 687 of 2021

¶31

1 - Moolchand (Dead) Through Shiv Agrawal (Proposed Legal Testamentary Heir) S/o Bajrang Agrawal Aged About 28 Years R/o Gandhi Ganj Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

--- Petitioner(s)

¶33

Versus

¶34

1 - Anand Kumar S/o Gopaldas Wadhari R/o Old Rajander Nagar, 3/44 New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶35

--- Respondent(s)

¶36

WITH

¶37

WPC No. 782 of 2021

¶38

1 - Gopal Das S/o Shri Bhikhu Lal Aged About 75 Years Resident Of Old Rajendra Nagar, 3/44, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶39

2 - Smt. Kamla W/o Shri Gopal Das Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Old Rajendra Nagar, 3/44, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶40

--- Petitioner(s)

¶41

Versus

¶42

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶43

2 - The Board Of Revenue Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶44

3 - The Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Camp Raigarh) District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶45

3

¶46

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶47

5 - The Tahsildar Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶48

6 - Mulchand (Dead) Through Proposed Legal Heirs Of Alleged Will Deed 1. Shiv Agrawal S/o Bajrang Agrawal Through General Power Attorney, Bajrang Agrawal, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶49

--- Respondent(s)

¶50

WITH

¶51

WPC No. 794 of 2021

¶52

1 - Smt. Kanchan Devi W/o Shri Darshan Waghari, Aged About 45 Years R/o Old Rajendra Nagar, 3/44, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶53

--- Petitioner(s)

¶54

Versus

¶55

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶56

2 - The Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶57

3 - The Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Camp Raigarh) District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶58

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶59

5 - The Tahsildar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Mulchand (Dead) Through Proposed Legal Heirs Of Alleged Will Deed, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶60

6 - Shiv Agrawal S/o Bajrang Agrawal Through General Power Attorney, Bajrang Agrawal, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶61

--- Respondent(s)

¶62

For Petitioner(s) in WPC/361/2021, WPC/782/2021 and WPC/794/2021	:	Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Petitioner(s) in WPC/438/2021, WPC/687/2021 and WPC/690/2021	:	Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L.

¶63

4

¶64

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶65

Judgment On Board

¶66

08-07-2025

¶67

1) Heard on admission.

¶68

2) With the consent of the parties, these petitions are heard finally.

¶69

3) Facts of the present cases are that the petitioners, namely Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi purchased the subject land bearing Khasra No. 93 ad-measuring 6.070 hectares situated at Village Sambalpuri, District–Raigarh (C.G.) through registered saledeeds dated 28.10.1999 from Lt. Mulchand. Thereafter, they moved applications for mutation before the Tahsildar, Raigarh which were allowed vide orders dated 23.03.2010. Lt. Mulchand challenged those orders by filing appeals before Sub Divisional Officer (R), Raigarh, which were allowed vide orders dated 14.09.2010 and 16.09.2010. Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi preferred second appeals against the said orders before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur. During the pendency of these appeals, Shiv Agrawal, the legal testamentary heir of Lt. Mulchand moved applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on the ground that during the lifetime, Lt. Mulchand executed a will-deed pertaining to the subject property in his favor on 29.10.2012 and thus he has the interest over the subject property. The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur rejected the applications moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC vide orders dated 09.11.2016. Shiv Agrawal preferred revision petitions before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue against the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur. Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue vide orders dated 28.11.2020 affirmed the orders dated 09.11.2016

¶70

5

¶71

and issued a direction with regard to vesting of the subject property with the State Government.

¶72

4) Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi have challenged the said part of orders passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue whereby subject property has been merged with the State Government, whereas Shiv Agrawal, the legal testamentary heir of Lt. Mulchand has challenged the orders passed by the Board of Revenue whereby revisions preferred by him have been dismissed.

¶73

5) Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners – Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi submits that revisions were preferred by Shiv Agrawal against the rejection of his applications moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to pass any adverse orders against Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi. He contends that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction while vesting the subject property with the State Government.

¶74

6) Mr. Priyank Rathi, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner – Shiv Agrawal submits that during the lifetime, Lt. Mulchand executed an unregistered will-deed in favor of Shiv Agrawal on 29.10.2012 and thus the right and interest accrued in his favor. He further submits that the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur ought to have allowed the applications moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. He contends that the Board of Revenue committed an error of law while dismissing the revision preferred by Shiv Agrawal.

¶75

7) Mr. Sinha and Mr. Rathi jointly pray to set aside the orders passed by the Board of Revenue.

¶76

8) On the other hand, the learned State counsels oppose. They submit

¶77

6

¶78

that the applications moved by Shiv Agrawal under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC were rejected on the ground that the same were moved at a belated stage. They further submit that Shiv Agrawal ought to have filed a civil suit claiming therein the right over the subject property on the basis of the will-deed. They contend that the Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the revision petitions preferred by Shiv Agrawal. They further contend that as Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi failed to prove their right over the subject property, the Board of Revenue passed the orders to merge the subject property with the State Government. They pray that these petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶79

9) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶80

10) Evidently, Lt. Mulchand executed registered sale-deeds in favor of Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi on 28.10.1999. Applications were moved by buyers for the mutation before the Tehsildar, Raigarh which were allowed on 23.03.2010. Thereafter, Mulchand himself filed memo of appeals against those orders before the SDO(R), Raigarh and the same were allowed vide order dated 14.09.2010 and 16.09.2010. Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi challenged the orders passed by the SDO(R), Raigarh before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur. In these appeals, Shiv Agrawal moved applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC inter-alia on the ground that during the lifetime, Lt. Mulchand executed a will-deed in favor of Shiv Agrawal on 29.10.2012 and thus he is a necessary party. The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur rejected the applications moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC vide orders dated 09.11.2016.

¶81

7

¶82

11) Undisputedly, Shiv Agrawal filed revisions before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue challenging the rejection of the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, therefore, there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to pass any adverse order against Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi, thus the orders passed against Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi are hereby set-aside.

¶83

12) With regard to the right of Shiv Agrawal, it is a well settled principle of law that the genuineness of a document is to be looked into in the course of the trial. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective order could be passed at all by the court whereas a proper party is one, whose presence enables the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s J.N. Real Estate Versus Shailendra Pradhan & Ors.¹ in para–32 held as under:-

¶84

32. Having regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the original defendant no. 8 (appellant herein) as one of the defendants in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We say so because the genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness of the documents is to be looked into in the course of the trial. A party who is seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be termed as a proper party. There is a fine distinction between a necessary party and a proper party. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in

¶85

1 . 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 519

¶86

8

¶87

the suit.

¶88

13) Therefore, I am of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur in its orders dated 09.11.2016 which have been affirmed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue are not sustainable in the eyes of the law in light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in matter of M/s J.N. Real Estate (supra) . Consequently, the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur, whereby applications moved by Shiv Agrawal under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC were rejected, are hereby set-aside and applications stand allowed.

¶89

14) It is directed that the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur shall permit Anand Kumar, Gopal Das and Kanchan Devi to implead Shiv Agrawal as a party in the memo of appeals. It is also directed that the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur shall afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to Shiv Agrawal.

¶90

15) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), these petitions

¶91

stand disposed of .

¶92

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶93

AjinkyaDigitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.11 14:12:53 +0530

Anand Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Dahire Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Khileshwar Sinha Vs Rehana Begam @ Ashu

Amrika Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Chairman And Managing Director Vs The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act

Nitesh More Vs Smt. Chanchal More

Maa Sharda Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh