Revenue Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Chhattisgarh HC

Revenue authorities cannot usurp the powers of a Civil Court to declare registered instruments of transfer as null and void, even in instances of alleged statutory violations regarding government-leased land. The High Court has reinforced that the sanctity of a registered document under the Transfer of Properties Act can only be adjudicated by a competent civil forum, thereby curtailing executive overreach in land record management.

In a significant verdict, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad consolidated three petitions to address the limits of revenue jurisdiction over registered sale deeds. The Court examined whether a Collector could unilaterally invalidate a sale for violating conditions associated with government-granted Patta (leases) under the CG Land Revenue Code.

Exclusivity of Civil Court Jurisdiction over Registered Instruments

The Court observed that while certain lands may be subject to transfer restrictions under Section 158(3) and Section 165(7-b) of the CG Land Revenue Code, the power to cancel a registered sale deed is not an administrative or revenue function. The Bench emphasized that once a document is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, its validity must be tested against the Specific Relief Act.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The power to grant a declaration setting aside the registered sale deed vests exclusively within the domain of the Civil Courts. Such jurisdiction does not vest in the Revenue Courts, which do not possess the competence to set-aside or cancel a registered instrument of transfer... Even if it is assumed that the sale-deed was executed without prior permission under Section 165(7-b) of the Code, the Revenue Court is still incompetent to declare the registered sale deed null and void."

Mandatory Compliance for Government Leased Lands

Despite quashing the Collector's order for lack of jurisdiction, the Court clarified that land originating from a government lease retains that character regardless of the subsequent accrual of Bhumiswami rights. Relying on Asset of Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Vs. S.P. Velayutham ( "(2022) 8 SCC 210": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 570), the Court noted that while High Courts can examine if statutory duties were performed during registration, an outright declaration of nullity remains a civil remedy.

The Court has following directions:

"The impugned orders (in all the writ petitions), to the extent that it declares the subject sale deed(s) null and void, are unsustainable and are hereby set-aside. As regards the remaining part of the impugned orders, without entering into the merits of the case, liberty is reserved in favour of the State Government to seek appropriate recourse and remedies before a competent Civil Court in accordance with law."

Background:

The petitioner, Sheikh Hameed, purchased land from the legal heirs of one Daya Ram, who had originally been granted the land via a government lease (Patta) in the year 2000. Under the CG Land Revenue Code, such lands require the Collector's prior permission for transfer. The Collector, Gariyaband, initiated proceedings and declared the sale-deed null and void, ordering the land to be returned to the State on the grounds that no such permission was obtained. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that Bhumiswami rights had accrued automatically after 10 years and that the Collector lacked the jurisdiction to invalidate a registered sale deed. The High Court ultimately set aside the Collector's declaration of nullity but granted the State liberty to approach a Civil Court.

Case Details:
Case No.: WPC No. 2349 of 2022
NeutralCitation: 2026:CGHC:30325
Case Title: Sheikh Hameed vs. State Of Chhattisgarh & Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. BP Sharma, Mr. Raza Ali, and Mr. Karthik Kathuria, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. GA; Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. SS Baghel, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 22