The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that while government authorities may examine whether land transferred from a government lease complied with the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, they do not have the legal authority to declare a registered sale deed null and void. The Court clarified that such a declaration can only be made by a competent civil court. The ruling came while deciding three connected writ petitions involving disputed transfers of government-allotted land.
Background of the Case
The lead matter, Sheikh Hameed v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, arose after the Collector, Gariyaband, cancelled the effect of a registered sale deed and directed that the land be recorded in the name of the State Government.
According to the record, the land was originally part of government grassland before a portion was converted into cultivable land and allotted to one Daya Ram through a government patta (lease). After Daya Ram's death, his legal heirs inherited the property and later sold it to Sheikh Hameed. The purchaser's name was subsequently entered in the revenue records.
However, revenue authorities initiated proceedings, alleging that the transfer violated Sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code because prior permission from the Collector had not been obtained before the sale. The Collector ultimately treated the sale deed as void and restored the land to the State.
The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that revenue authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction.
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioners contended that even if there had been a violation of the Land Revenue Code, the Collector could not invalidate a registered sale deed. They argued that only a civil court has the power to cancel or declare such documents void.
The State defended the Collector's order, maintaining that land originally granted by the government could not be transferred without prior permission under the statutory provisions. According to the State, any transfer made without such approval was illegal and could rightly be treated as void.
Court's Observations
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad first examined the nature of the land and concluded that it had originally been granted by the State through a government lease. The Court observed that even after the allottee acquired Bhumiswami rights, the land retained its origin as government lease land.
The Court held that prior permission under Section 165(7-b) remained necessary before transferring such land, and a transfer made without that permission could attract legal consequences under the Land Revenue Code.
However, the Court drew a clear distinction between determining whether statutory requirements were violated and declaring a registered sale deed invalid.
Referring to the Transfer of Property Act, the Specific Relief Act and the Supreme Court's judgment in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham, the Court observed:
"The power to grant a declaration setting aside the registered sale deed vests exclusively within the domain of the Civil Courts."
The bench further observed that even where statutory violations are alleged, revenue authorities cannot assume the jurisdiction of civil courts by declaring a registered instrument null and void.
Court's Decision
Allowing the petitions in part, the High Court held that the Collector had exceeded the limits of revenue jurisdiction by declaring the registered sale deeds null and void.
The Court set aside the impugned orders only to the extent they invalidated the sale deeds, while leaving the remaining portions of the orders untouched. It also granted liberty to the State Government to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil court in accordance with law.
With these directions, all three writ petitions were disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Sheikh Hameed v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Lead Case) along with connected writ petitions
Case Number: WPC No. 2349 of 2022 (connected with WPC No. 4192 of 2022 and WPC No. 2439 of 2022)
Judge: Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Decision Date: 17 July 2026
