ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. R.N./05/R/A-70/119/2011, whereby, the Board of Revenue, has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners while affirming the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur in Revenue Appeal Case No.279/A-70/2009-10 and accordingly, the application filed by respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh under Section 116 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’), has been allowed. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-Guruvindar Singh on the basis of an agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005 (Annexure P-3), purported to have been executed in his favour by one Santosh Kumar, who is one of the co-owners of the land in question bearing Khasra No.225/1 admeasuring 7.59 acres situated at village Chorha, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, moved an application on 22.01.2008 before the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Dhamdha for recording of his name in Kafiat column of Khasra Panchashala under Section 116 of the Code, 1959. The said application was allowed by the said authority vide its order dated 26.02.2008, which was reversed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durg vide its order dated 28.06.2008, and in appeal preferred thereagainst by respondent No.1, it was reversed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur vide its order dated 07.01.2011 and was found to be affirmed further by the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned dated 23.10.2012 in revision preferred by the petitioners and being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the entire proceedings as initiated under Section 116 of the Code, 1959, at the instance of the respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh is not at all sustainable as the same has been initiated on the basis of an alleged agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005, seeking new entries in revenue record which is, however, not permissible under the said provision. It is, therefore, contended that the revenue authorities, except the Sub-Divisional Officer (R.) Durg, have committed an illegality in directing for recording the name of said respondent in the revenue papers. The order impugned as passed by the Board of Revenue while rejecting his revision petition and that by allowing the said application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 116 of the Code, 1959 is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. The order impugned as passed by the Board of Revenue while rejecting his revision petition and that by allowing the said application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 116 of the Code, 1959 is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the order impugned as passed by the court below. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Khasra No.225/1 admeasuring 7.59 acres situated at village Chorha (Rampur), Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg and, a part of it, i.e. 0.405 hectares (1 acre) was agreed to be sold by one of the co-owner, namely, Santosh Kumar in favour of the respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh by executing an agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005 (Annexure P-3), while putting him in possession thereof. Initially, said Guruvindar Singh based upon the alleged agreement moved an application (Annexure P-4) on 30.04.2007 for partition. The said proceeding, which was registered as Revenue Case No.16-A-74/2007-08, was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 26.12.2007 and the same was, thereafter got to be restored vide order dated 16.01.2008 and subsequently, the said application was again dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2008. It appears that during its pendency, said Guruvindar Singh moved another application (Annexure P-7) on 22.01.2008 while invoking the provision prescribed under Section 116 of the Code, 1959 and praying for recording of his name in Kafiat column of Khasra Panchashala based upon the alleged agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005. The said proceeding was registered as Revenue Case No. 02/A-70/2007-08 by the Naib Tehsildar, Dhamdha and vide its order dated 26.02.2008 (Annexure P-8), has allowed the same while taking note of the spot inspection report submitted by the concerned Patwari and also by considering the recitals made in the alleged agreement to sale dated 06.07.2005. 7. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R.), Durg, who in turn, vide its order dated 28.06.2008 (Annexure P-11), passed in Appeal Case No. 75/A-70/2007-08 has reversed the same as the direction issued by the said authority is contrary to the provisions prescribed under Section 116 of the Code, 1959. 8. 8. The aforesaid order was questioned by said Guruvindar Singh in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, who in turn, vide its order dated 07.01.2011 has reversed the aforesaid order in Revenue Appeal Case No. 279/A-70/2009-10 by observing, inter alia, that since the terms and conditions stipulated in the alleged agreement to sale, was not followed by the petitioners, therefore, it cannot be upheld and, accordingly, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 28.06.2008 has been reversed, while affirming the order of Naib Tehsildar, Dhamdha allowing his application as made on 22.01.2008 under Section 116 of the Code, 1959. The said order has been affirmed further by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur vide its order impugned dated 23.10.2012 in Revision Revenue Case No. R.N./05/R/A-70/119/2011 preferred by the petitioners. 9. The propriety of the aforesaid order has been questioned by the petitioners by contending, inter alia, that the entire proceeding as initiated by said Guruvindar Singh under Section 116 of the Code, 1959, based upon an alleged agreement to sale dated 06.07.2005 is not at all sustainable and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 10. In view of the facts involved herein, the question which, therefore, arises for determination in this petition is: “Whether the entire proceedings initiated at the instance of said Guruvindar Singh praying for recording of his name in revenue papers, along with the petitioners, based upon an agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005, said to have been executed by one of the co-owner in his favour under Section 116 of the Code, 1959 could be held to be sustainable?” 11. In order to ascertain the answer of the aforesaid question, it is necessary to examine the provision enumerated under Section 116 of the Code, 1959, which reads as under :- 116. Disputes regarding entry in khasra or in any other land records.- (1) If any person is aggrieved by an entry made in the land records prepared under Section 114 in respect of matters other than those referred to in Section 108, he shall apply to the Tahsildar for its correction within one year of the date of such entry. (2) The Tahsildar shall, after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, pass necessary order in the matter. 12. (2) The Tahsildar shall, after making such enquiry as he may deem fit, pass necessary order in the matter. 12. The aforesaid provision empowers the Tahsildar to order for correction of an entry made in the land records under Section 114 of the Code, 1959 in respect of the matters other than those referred to in Section 108, when an application to that effect is made by a person aggrieved by such entry. It, thus, appears that for the applicability of this provision, the dispute should be, about some entry in the land records prepared under Section 114, and it should not be related to matters referred to in Section 108 of the Code, 1959. What is, therefore, reflected from a bare perusal of this provision that, if the entry did not exist in the land records, then this provision would not be attracted and new entry cannot be created in exercise of this provision as it no where provides for the new entry in the land records. The provision has, thus, nothing to do with an entry which is yet to be made on account of a person having acquired any interest by way of transfer, sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise. 13. As observed herein above, the petitioners are admittedly the owners of the land in question and their names have been recorded jointly since long in revenue papers and none of them have ever aggrieved with regard to the said entry. Therefore, the respondent No.1- Guruvindar Singh, being a stranger and whose name is not recorded there in the revenue papers, cannot be held to be the aggrieved person in view of the provisions prescribed under Section 116 of the Code, 1959. Yet, the application made by him on the basis of an agreement to sale, dated 06.07.2005 was entertained by the Naib Tehsildar, Dhamdha, which has ultimately been upheld by the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned. 14. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 23.10.2012 passed in Revenue Case No. RN/05/R/A-70/119/2011 by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur is hereby quashed. No order as to cost(s).