1 2025:CGHC:37100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3487 of 2025 Pardeshi S/o Punau Satnami Aged About 65 Years (Pardeshi S/o Pawan Satnami Wrongly Shown Before The Courts Below ) R/o Village Gunarboad, Bemetara, Tah. And District - Bemetara, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Dhaniram S/o Punau Satnami R/o Village Gunarboad Bemetara Tah. And District- Bemetara, (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate As Caveator : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:- a. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to this case before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal. b. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed the impugned order i.e. Annexure P-1 dated 06.05.2025 passed by Board of Revenue Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) as well as order passed by Commissioner, Durg dated 29.09.2022 i.e. Annexure P- 2 2. c. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ petition filing against the impugned order i.e. Annexure P-1 dated 06.05.2025 and the order passed in Annexure P-2 dated 29.09.2022 and order of remand may kindly be quashed as it is against the proviso of Section 49(3) of Chhattisgarh Land and Revenue Code. d. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order(s), direction(s), writ(s), which the Hon’ble Court deems fit, and proper in the instant petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) in Revenue Revision No. R.N./23/R/A6/304/2022 arising out of the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by Commissioner, Durg Chhattisgarh in Revenue appeal no. 213A- 6/2021-22 Online No. 202202980100009. He submits that the learned SDO Bemetara, C.G., was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the respondent in Revenue Appeal holding inter alia that the petitioner is the son of Punau and the order passed in mutation entry no. 5 dated 20.01.2009 is absolutely a legal and deserves to be upheld. And it is also further necessary to clear that in both the above orders dated 06.05.2025 and 29.09.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue and Commissioner, Durg, are also agreed with the fact that petitioner is son of Punau but still the well reasoned order passed by the SDO has been set aside only on the erroneous ground that Power to do partition under Section 178 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is vested only to Tahsildar. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the State as well as the caveator opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. On bare perusal of the record, Annexure P-4 as well as Annexure P-5 which is the Register of Rights under the head “Adhikar 3 Abhilek Panji” reveals the belonging of the land in question. It is also clear that there is dispute with regard to the paternity of the petitioner. 5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute regarding the paternity of the parties are to be decided in Civil Court. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, the petitioner as well as the respondents are at liberty to file civil suit before the competent Court/appropriate Court. 7. With the aforesaid liberty the instant petition is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza