1 2025:CGHC:25178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2571 of 2025 1 - Abdul Sattar S/o Late Abdul Jabbar Aged About 59 Years R/o Near Kali Mandir, Risda Road, Tahsil - Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jarina Begam D/o Late Abdul Jabbar Aged About 63 Years R/o Behind Anjuman Madarsha, Nayapara, Near Durga Chowk, Tahsil - Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Jaitun Nishra D/o Late Abdul Jabbar Aged About 55 Years R/o Behind Anjuman Madarsha, Nayapara, Near Durga Chowk, Tahsil - Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Abdul Sajjad S/o Late Abdul Jabbar Aged About 53 Years R/o Mission Para, Village - Parsaahar, P.S. - Balodabazar, Tahsil - Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Abdul Rajjak S/o Late Abdul Jabbar Aged About 60 Years R/o Reshma Rui Bhandar, Sadar Bazar, Balodabazar, Tahsil - Balodabazar,, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - The Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 6 - The Collector Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - The Sub Divisional Officer Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 8 - The Tahsildar Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 18.06.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N. 21/R/A – 6/43/2024 by the learned board of Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Annexure P-1) 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Board of Revenue District- Raipur. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding which has been initiated by the Sub Divisional Office Baloda Bazar in accordance with law, the proclamation was issued, the deed of consent (agreement) given by the sisters of petitioner was also attached, the father by whom, the ded was executed was examined, then after the order of the mutation was passed. Hence there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the SDO/Tahsildar Baloda Bazaar. But without perusing the same, wrongly dismissed the case of the petitioner. He further submitted that the land in question is the self acquired property of the father of the petitioner, and no one have a right to raise any objection 3 during his lifetime, because it was his sweet will to enjoy or donate or partition to land anyone but learned Commissioner and Board of Revenue ignoring the fact, regarding the proceeding which was done in the lifetime of father of parties, wrongly held that, the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the interested party. 3. He submits that as per the provisions of Section 178A of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 whenever a bhumi swami wishes to partition his agriculture land amongst the legal heirs during his lifetime, he may apply for partition to the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar after hearing the legal heirs devoid the holding and a portion the assessment of holding in accordance with the rules made under this court. But mere perusal of the agreement dated 04.03.2005 it appears that the father of the daughters was inclined to partition of his land between two sons and in this regard both have executed the deed of agreement, meaning of that, both were aware about the acts and conduct of their father and brothers and without the knowledge of them, the proceedings of the SDO and Tahsildar by which the order of mutation has been passed, assailed hence it is hopelessly bared by limitation, merely on the ground of limitation ought to have rejected the appeal of the respondents but without proper condonation of delay set-aside the order. Hence the same is not maintainable in the eye of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On bare perusal of the records available and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that no order has been passed by the respondent authority (Revenue Court) against the present petitioner. The order which has been passed only pertains to giving the opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 1 and 2, which in the eyes of law as well as in the considered opinion of this court is according to the norms of natural justice. Therefore, this court is of the view that the present petition is not a fit petition to be entertained. 7. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Certified copy, as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza