1 2025:CGHC:9241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3525 of 2022 1 - Smt. Phool Bai Sonkar W/o Jhunnulal Sonkar Aged About 65 Years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o Village - Khudmuda, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue Circuit Court, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Durg Division, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Bhilai - 3, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Jhuniya Bai W/o Tetku Sonkar Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Labour, R/o Village - Bhathagaon, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.24 17:34:33 +0530 2 For Respondent/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order of Board of Revenue dated 13/06/2022, by which, the order of Tahsildar dated 20.04.2017 & order of the Commissioner dated 26/07/2018 has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar has proceeded in an application under Section 178 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for partition of holding. He further submits that though the civil appeal arising out of Civil Suit No.42-A/94 between the parties are pending before the High Court. The Tahsildar has proceeded in the application under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 for partition of holding. Even the board of Revenue has not considered the said fact and rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that the Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the revision filed by the petitioner by affirming the proceeding of the Tahsildar and the other revenue authorities, as the petitioner failed to produce any interim order, by which, the proceeding of partition of holding has been stayed by any authority. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Board of Revenue. 5. The Board of Revenue observed in the order that the revenue Court’s have rightly proceeded in the application under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 for partition of holding and as there is no interim order staying the proceeding drawn under Section 178 of the Code, 1959, the order passed by revenue authorities are just and proper. 6. I have perused the order of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has observed in the order that the petitioner has not produced any stay order before the revenue authorities and in absence of any stay of decree as well as the proceeding drawn by the revenue authorities, there is no illegality and infirmity in the order of the Board of Revenue, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep