-1- 2025:CGHC:17691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 719 of 2015 1 - Lakhanlal S/o Late Narayan, Aged About 53 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Village Dokla, Tahsil Mohla Manpur Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh....................Non-Applicant, 2 - Jagdish, S/o Late Narayan, Aged About 54 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Village Dokla, Tahsil Mohla Manpur Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh....................Non-Applicant, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashok , S/o Late Narayan, Aged About 39 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Village Dokla, Tahsil Mohla Manpur Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh....................Non-Applicant, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Jhune Bai, Wd/o. Late Narayan Aged About 70 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Village Dokla, Tahsil Mohla Manpur Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh....................Non-Applicant, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - A Smt. Benu Bai, W/o. Late Sunderlal Aged About 50 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Village Dokla, Tahsil Mohla Manpur Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh....................Non-Applicant, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5.B - Kumari Lipika, D/o Late Sundar Lal Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Namely Benu Bai, W/o Late Sunderlal, R/o Village Dokla, Tahsil Mohla Manpur, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Kunji Kunj Lal, S/o Late Lachchhiram, Aged About 61 Years Caste Mahar, Resident Of Village Dokla, Tahsil Mohla Manpur Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh....................Non-Applicant, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- versus 1 - Shyam Lal (Dead) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-02-2025. 1.1 - A. Gayatri W/o Late Shri Shyamlal Aged About 77 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - B. Mansingh S/o Late Shri Shyamlal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - C. Kala D/o Late Shri Shyamlal Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - D. Laila D/o Late Shri Shyamlal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - E. Ahilya D/o Late Shri Shyamlal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 1.6 - F. Khubchand S/o Late Shri Shayamlal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 1.7 - G. Heeralal S/o Late Shri Shyamlal Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 1.8 - H. Chitrarekha D/o Late Shri Shyamlal Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. 1.9 - I. Chandraprabha D/o Late Shri Shyamlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dokla Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Now District Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) -3- (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For petitioners : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.04.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside impugned order dated 27.07.2015 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the Board of Revenue Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Facts of the present case are as under:- A. The suit land bearing Survey No. 4, admeasuring 15.69 acres, situated at Village Antgaon, Tehsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, originally belonged to Mahadev, who had two sons, namely Lachhiram and Ganpat. After the death of Mahadev, the land was to be jointly inherited by both sons. However, Ganpat passed away, leaving behind his minor son, Shyamlal. B. Subsequently, Lachhiram sold the entire land and purchased a new parcel of land bearing Survey No. 4, situated at Village Dokla, measuring 15.69 acres, in his own name. He kept Shyamlal with him and registered the purchased land in the names of his three sons, namely Narayan, Sundarlal, and Kunjilal, and divided it equally among them including Shyamlal. -4- C. Later, Shyamlal claimed ½ share of the suit land on the ground that the same is ancestral property and he is entitled to get the share of his late father- Ganpat. The learned Tehsildar rejected the claim of Shyamlal and declared the land self-acquired property of Lachhiram, granting only a one-fourth share to Shyamlal. D. Shyamlal filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer [SDO (R)], who set-aside the order passed by the learned Tehsildar and allowed the claim of Shyamlal for 1/2 share. The learned Additional Commissioner affirmed the findings of learned Tehsildar. E. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Shyamlal filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. F. The Board of Revenue, vide order dated 27.07.2015 set aside the orders passed by the learned Tehsildar dated 20.02.2007 and the learned Additional Commissioner dated 05.09.2013 and directed the learned Tehsildar to record the name of Shyamlal in the revenue records and held that since the question of title and rights are involved, the parties should approach the competent Civil Court. 3) Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the subject property was purchased by the late Lachhiram through a registered sale deed from his own income and that petitioners No.1 to 5 are his grandsons and granddaughters, therefore, they are entitled to equal shares in the said property. He contended that the Commissioner passed a well-reasoned order in favour of the petitioners and that the Board of Revenue erred in reversing the same without considering that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners had not been challenged by the respondent. Thus, he prayed to quash the order passed -5- by the learned Board of Revenue. 4) Mr. Pallav Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by the counsel counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that Lachhiram had sold the ancestral property in which the late Ganpat, the father of the respondent had an equal share. He argued that the respondent is entitled to a half share in the subject property. He further contended that the Board of Revenue rightly held that the question of title and rights is involved and that the proper forum for adjudication is the competent Civil Court. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6) In the present case, the learned Board of Revenue held that Shyamlal sought ½ share in the suit land on the basis of his ancestral rights. It is not in dispute that the original land at Village Antgaon (Survey No. 4) belonged to Mahadev and was equally inherited by his sons Lachhiram and Ganpat. After the death of Ganpat, his son Shyamlal became legally entitled to his father’s share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The land in Village Dokla, though purchased in the name of Lachhiram, was purchased by selling the original ancestral land. Hence, the purchased land retained the character of the ancestral property and cannot be deemed to be self-acquired property of Lachhiram. Lachhiram had no exclusive right over the entire suit property. The argument that the suit land was self-acquired by Lachhiram has no substance and, hence, is rejected. The -6- Tehsildar, by granting only a one-fourth share to Shyamlal, committed a legal error. The Additional Commissioner, by upholding that decision, also erred in law; thus, the learned Board of Revenue rightly allowed the revision preferred by Shyamlal and set aside the orders passed by learned Tehsildar dated 20.02.2007 and the learned Additional Commissioner dated 05.09.2013. 7) The learned Board of Revenue rightly held that the issue involved in the matter requires the determination of title and rights, which falls within the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court. In light of the above discussion, no good ground is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Board of Revenue. 8) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The civil suit, if filed by either party, shall be decided by the competent Civil Court on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made herein. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM