1 2025:CGHC:41182 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3255 of 2023 1 - Pudgu @ Geetram (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03-01-2025 1.1 - Jethiya Bai (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 17-02-2025. 1.2 - Ferha Sahu S/o Pudgu Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sanakpat, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Tulsiram Sahu S/o Pudgu Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Sanakpat, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Bharat Sahu S/o Pudgu Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Sanakpat, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Collector, Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Board Of Revenue Circuit Court, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Durg Division, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Naib Tahsildar Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Kumari Bai Wd/o - Late Dheeraj Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Jhiriya, Tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Baldev Sahu S/o Shri Firangi Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Sanakpat, Post Office Pendritarai, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 8 - Toran Sahu S/o Shri Firangi Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Sanakpat, Post Office Pendritarai, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent no. 7 and 8 : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent no. 6 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.08.22 14:04:32 +0530 2 14.08.2025 1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- “a. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order datead 08.05.2023 with all consequential proceedings. b. To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. ” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order Annexure P-1 is bad in law, being perverse and erroneous, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He submits that while passing judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012 the learned trial court has held that the respondent no. 6 is entitled to get 1/5th share over the suit lands mentioned in Schedule ‘A’. Respondent no.6 is entitled of 1/5th share over the lands mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ meaning thereby the respondent no. 5 will get 1/5th share upon all the khasra no. of land. 3. He further submits that while passing Fard Partition and mutation order dated 12.07.2019 the respondent no. 5 ordered for mutation of land bearing khasra no. 135, 288, 292 admeasuring area 0.36, 0.62 and 0.26 total admeasuring area 1.24 acres situated at village Sanakpat in the name of respondent no. 6 whereas the said lands are recorded in the name of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents admitted that the civil suit bearing suit no. 42-A/2009 was filed by the respondent no. 6 and on 17.10.2012 learned trial Court has passed the decree vide order dated 17.10.2012 in favor of respondent no. 6 and held that 3 the respondent no. 6 is entitled to get 1/5th of share over the suit lands mentioned in Scheduled “A”. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the document available with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the overall aspects of the case, as per decree share of 1/5th is to be granted to private respondents from entire property of Schedule A. In Schedule A there is total area of 5.955 acres. The Revenue Authorities in pursuance of the decree passed by the learned Civil Court, Tehsildar has not partitioned the land in terms of the decree of the learned Civil Court and only 1/5th share has been allotted from the part of property and not from the whole property of the share which is affecting the property possessed by the petitioner only. 7. Learned counsel for both the respective parties agreed to partitioned the whole land of Schedule A which is a part of the decree. Therefore, order passed by the respondent no. 2(The Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh) vide order dated 08.05.2023 is perverse and is hereby set aside. 8. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE