Revenue Court Cannot Declare Registered Sale Deed Void Even If Executed In Violation Of Statutory Provisions: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that even where a registered sale deed is alleged to have been executed in violation of statutory provisions governing transfer of land, a Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to declare the sale deed null and void. The Court observed that the power to adjudicate upon the validity and cancellation of a registered sale deed vests exclusively in the Civil...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that even where a registered sale deed is alleged to have been executed in violation of statutory provisions governing transfer of land, a Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to declare the sale deed null and void. The Court observed that the power to adjudicate upon the validity and cancellation of a registered sale deed vests exclusively in the Civil Court, and this exclusive jurisdiction cannot be usurped by revenue authorities merely because the transaction is alleged to contravene the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was deciding three connected writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Collector, declaring registered sale deeds void and directing that the lands be recorded in the name of the State Government. The lands had originally been granted by the State on lease (Patta) to the original allottee, whose legal heirs subsequently sold the properties to the petitioners through registered sale deeds. The Collector held that the transfers had been effected without obtaining the prior permission required under Sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and, therefore, declared the sale deeds null and void.
The petitioners challenged the orders, contending that the Collector, while exercising revenue jurisdiction, could not annul registered sale deeds, which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
The Court held that land originally granted by the State on lease retains that character even after the lessee acquires Bhumiswami rights by operation of law. It interpreted Sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Code to mean that any transfer of such land requires prior permission of the Collector, and that a sale executed without such permission would be illegal and liable to be treated as void in law.
However, the Court drew a clear distinction between the legal consequence of a statutory violation and the forum competent to declare a registered instrument void. It held that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act confer upon Civil Courts the exclusive authority to adjudicate upon the validity and cancellation of registered sale deeds.
Consequently, even if a sale deed is alleged to have been executed without the mandatory permission under Section 165(7-b) of the Code, the Revenue Court remains incompetent to declare it null and void.
“… 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,” the Court observed.
Holding that the Collector had exceeded the limits of his revenue jurisdiction by declaring the registered sale deeds null and void, the Court set aside the impugned orders to that extent.
Case Title: Sheikh Hameed v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (With Connected Matters) [WPC No. 2349 of 2022]