Bindu Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed CGHC010346862022 by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:2026.07.17 18:17:57 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:30396

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 4529 of 2022

¶7

1 - Bindu Dewangan S/o Late Janak Prasad Dewangan Aged About 58 Years By Caste Koshta, R/o Mahaveer Ward No. 12, Narayanpur, Tahsil And District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Neelamani Dewangan S/o Late Janak Prasad Dewangan Aged About 48 Years By Caste Koshta, R/o Mahaveer Ward No. 12, Narayanpur, Tahsil And District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Board Of Revenue Circuit Court, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The Commissioner Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - The Tahsildar Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

6 - Tankeshwar Prasad Dewangan S/o Late Janak Prasad Dewangan Aged About 62 Years By Caste Koshta, R/o Narayanpur, Mahaveer Ward Tahsil And District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

7 - Damyanti Dewangan W/o Late Tomeshwar Dewangan By Caste Koshta, R/o Narayanpur, Mahaveer Ward Tahsil And DistrictNarayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2

¶19

8 - Akshay Dewangan S/o Late Tomeshwar Dewangan Aged About 29 Years By Caste Koshta, R/o Narayanpur, Mahaveer Ward Tahsil And District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

9 - Susmita Dewangan D/o Late Tomeshwar Dewangan Aged About 27 Years By Caste Koshta, R/o Narayanpur, Mahaveer Ward Tahsil And District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

10 - Disha Dewangan D/o Tomeshwar Dewangan Aged About 23 Years By Caste Koshta, R/o Narayanpur, Mahaveer Ward Tahsil And DistrictNarayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶24

For Petitioners	: Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble S	hri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶25

17.07.2026

¶26

1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur has been dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation, with an observation that no illegality or irregularity is found in the order impugned before it. The petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :-

¶27

3

¶28

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to case of petitioners.

¶29

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) and remand the case to the learned Board of Revenue for deciding the revision on its own merits, in accordance with law.

¶30

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶31

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Board of Revenue is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts. It is contended that the property in question was the self-acquired property of late Smt. Kanakbati, having been allotted to her by the Government, and during her lifetime she had voluntarily executed a registered Will dated 20.08.2004 in favour of petitioner No.1, who had been taking care of her. It is submitted that after the demise of late Smt. Kanakbati, petitioner No.1 sought mutation of the property on the strength of the aforesaid Will; however, the Tahsildar, while entertaining mutation proceedings, exceeded his jurisdiction by entering into the validity and genuineness of the Will and branding it as a suspicious document. According to learned counsel, it is well settled that revenue authorities exercising summary

¶32

4

¶33

jurisdiction are not competent to adjudicate upon the genuineness, legality or validity of a testamentary instrument, such issues falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court.

¶34

3. Learned counsel would further submit that the Board of Revenue has committed a manifest error in dismissing the revision solely on the ground of limitation. It is argued that after the Commissioner passed the order dated 13.10.2020, the petitioners had preferred a review petition before the Commissioner, whereupon the Commissioner sought permission from the Board of Revenue for reviewing the said order. The Board of Revenue, by order dated 28.02.2022, declined to grant such permission. The certified copy of the said order was supplied to the petitioners only on 04.05.2022, whereafter the revision petition was instituted on 24.05.2022 without any undue delay. Thus, according to learned counsel, the revision could not have been rejected as barred by limitation. It is further submitted that even assuming there was any delay, the Board of Revenue ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to file an application seeking condonation of delay instead of dismissing the revision at the threshold. It is urged that the revisional authority ought to have adjudicated the matter on its own merits rather than non-suiting the petitioners on a technical ground. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel prays that the impugned order be quashed and

¶35

5

¶36

the matter be remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

¶37

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while supporting the impugned order, submits that no interference is warranted in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that the entire claim of the petitioners is founded upon a Will dated 20.08.2004, the validity, execution and genuineness whereof are seriously disputed by the private respondents. Such disputed questions relating to testamentary succession cannot be adjudicated in mutation proceedings or in writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and are maintained only for fiscal purposes. Therefore, if the petitioners claim exclusive title over the property on the strength of the alleged Will, the proper and efficacious remedy available to them is to approach the competent civil court for declaration of their rights and for establishing the validity of the Will in accordance with law. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶38

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶39

6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the record, this Court finds that the entire controversy revolves around the alleged Will dated 20.08.2004, said to have been executed by late Smt. Kanakbati in favour of petitioner No.1. The claim of exclusive

¶40

6

¶41

succession raised by the petitioners is entirely dependent upon the due execution, validity and genuineness of the said testamentary document, which is disputed by the contesting respondents. Determination of such questions necessarily requires appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, examination of the attesting witnesses and recording of findings on disputed questions of fact, an exercise which cannot appropriately be undertaken either by the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings or by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

7. It is equally well settled that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and revenue authorities are not competent to finally adjudicate questions of title or pronounce upon the validity of a Will. The entries made in revenue records are intended only for fiscal purposes and do not confer or extinguish proprietary rights. Consequently, any observation made by the revenue authorities regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the Will cannot conclusively determine the civil rights of the parties.

¶43

8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be adequately served by reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to avail the appropriate civil remedy. In the event the petitioners institute appropriate civil proceedings seeking declaration of their rights and confirmation/proof of the Will dated 20.08.2004 alleged to have

¶44

7

¶45

been executed in their favour, the competent civil court shall consider and decide the same independently on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made by the revenue authorities or by the Board of Revenue in the impugned proceedings.

¶46

9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the present writ petition stands disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the competent civil court for establishment and confirmation of the Will dated 20.08.2004 and for appropriate declaration of their rights, if so advised. All questions relating to title, succession and validity of the Will are left open to be adjudicated by the competent civil court in accordance with law.

¶47

10. No order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶50

Yogesh

Bindu Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu Dewangan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lurki Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonali Kumari Sahani Vs Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education

Rajkumar Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuwan Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisharh

Ramdayal Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh