Unregistered Relinquishment Deed Cannot Transfer Title: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Challenge To Revenue Board Order
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a relinquishment deed transferring title to immovable property must be registered and that an unregistered relinquishment deed cannot transfer title even if it was executed in the presence of witnesses. The Court accordingly dismissed a petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order, which had affirmed the setting aside of a mutation based on an unregistered relinquishment deed.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the June 24, 2026 order of the Board of Revenue, which had set aside the Commissioner's order and affirmed the order of the SDO. The dispute concerned mutation of property in which Buchi Bai's name had been deleted from the revenue record in 1981 on the basis of a deed allegedly executed by her in favour of petitioner Narayan Soni.
The petitioners contended that the document was not a relinquishment deed but a family settlement and that Buchi Bai had admitted its execution. They submitted that her name had been deleted from the revenue record pursuant to the document and that longstanding possession could not be disturbed merely because the document was not registered.
The Court noted that the SDO, while deciding Buchi Bai's appeal on merits, had found that the document was a relinquishment deed requiring registration and that the evidence did not establish that Buchi Bai had voluntarily executed it. The SDO consequently set aside the 1981 mutation order and directed mutation of the names of Buchi Bai's legal heirs.
The Court further noted that the Commissioner had considered the delay in filing the appeal and the fact that the document had been executed 49 years earlier in the presence of witnesses. However, the Court held that the Commissioner's consideration of the delay was impermissible because the SDO's order condoning the delay had already been affirmed by the Board of Revenue in 2004 and had attained finality.
On the question of registration, the Court held that the Commissioner's consideration was perverse because, irrespective of the long lapse of time and the presence of witnesses, the requirement of law was that the relinquishment deed be registered where title was transferred.
“… even after the long lapse of time, the requirement of law is that the relinquishment deed should be registered, as the title has been transferred by the said deed, and without there being any registered relinquishment deed, the title could not be transferred even if it was executed in the presence of two witnesses. Therefore, in the absence of any registered relinquishment deed, the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, ought not to have allowed the revision filed by the petitioners…” the Court remarked.
Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Board of Revenue's order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Narayan Soni & Ors. v. Kumari Niramala Soni & Ors. [WP227 No. 1248 of 2026]