1 2025:CGHC:1518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2224 of 2020 Rakshapal Khamhari S/o Late Shri Shibo Khamhari (Wrongly Mentioned As Bihari) Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Chitakakani, Tahsil- Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Board Of Revenue Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - The Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (Camp Raigarh) (Chhattisgarh). 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raigarh, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 4 - The Tahsildar Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 5 - Smt. Safed Khamhari D/o Late Shri Shibo Khamhari (Wrongly Mentioned As Bihari) Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Chitakakani, Tahsil- Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Presently Residing At Village- Belariya, Post- Banora, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 6 - Smt. Pyari Khamhari D/o Late Shri Shibo Khamhari (Wrongly Mentioned As Bihari) Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Chitakakani, Tahsil- Raigarh, PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.10 10:47:24 +0530 2 District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), Presently Residing At Village - Delari, Post- Saraipali, Tahsil-Tamnar, District- Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For State/Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Sacchidanand Yadav, P.L. For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 09/01/2025 Heard. 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 20/02/2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case No.RN/13/R/A-27/239/2018, whereby, while affirming the orders dated 12/09/2018 and 24/11/2016 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur and Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh, respectively, has dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the land admeasuring 1.045 hectare of 13 khasra numbers were recorded in the name of Shibo, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as the respondents No.5 & 6., and after the sad demise of said Shibo, the petitioner as well as the respondents No.5 & 6 have filed an application (Annexure P/2) under Section 178 of The Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “The Code, 1959”) seeking partition of the said land before the Tahsildar, Raigarh, where the said proceeding was registered as Revenue Case No.03/A-27/2015-16. In the said application, it was prayed that since the respondent No.5-Smt. 3 Safed Khamhari is cultivating the land bearing khasra No.10/61 क admeasuring 0.016 hectare and respondent No.6-Smt. Pyari Khamhari is cultivating the land bearing khasra No.10/51 क admeasuring 0.029 hectare, therefore, the same be given to them, while rest be recorded in the name of the petitioner-Rakshapal Khamhari. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar, Raigarh vide its order dated 27/10/2015 (Annexure P/6) and the partition as made was granted. It, however, appears that one of the co-owner, namely, respondent No.5-Smt. Safed Khamhari, being aggrieved with the same, has preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh under Section 44(1) of the Code, 1959, alleging therein that since, her thumb impression was not there and by obtaining the forged thumb impression of her, the alleged application (Annexure P/2) was filed. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, in the said appeal, vide its order dated 24/11/2016 (Annexure P/6) has observed that, while passing the order of partition, the Tahsildar, Raigarh has committed the procedural defects and, since, the alleged land was recorded in their joint names, therefore, the partition as was made by the said authority was found to be unusual and, accordingly, equal partition, i.e. 1/3rd share each was granted to them while reducing 0.129 hectare of khasra No.11/1 to the petitioner- Rakshapal Khamhari, owing to its alienation by him to someone else during the pendency of the appeal under a registered deed of sale, dated 26.11.2015 with an observation that it would fall in his share on account of the alleged sale. 4. Since, the property-in-question was recorded in the joint names of petitioner as well as respondents No.5 & 6, therefore, the Commissioner, Bilaspur vide its order dated 12/09/2018 (Annexure 4 P/7) and the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned dated 20/02/2020 (Annexure P/1) has not committed any illegality in upholding the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raigarh, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 5. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Prashant