1 2025:CGHC:1636-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 904 of 2024 Smt. Krishna Lekhwani W/o Shrichand Lekhwani Aged About 58 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Kanwar Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Kailash Chandra Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani, Aged About 56 Years R/o Sindhi Colony, Patankar Colony, Durg Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kaushilya Panjwani, D/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani, W/o Shekhar Panjwani, R/o Near Shiv Shoes Axis Bank, Devli Road, Dayal Nagar, Wardha, Takshila Budh Vihar, Maharashtra 442001. 3 - Smt. Sadhna Lalwani D/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani, W/o Harish Lalwani, R/o Opposite Barah Kholi, Sindhi Colony, Murtizapur, Maharashtra 444107. 4 - Vinod Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani, R/o Sindhi Colony, Durg Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 492001 5 - Ajay Kumar Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani, R/o Sindhi Colony, Durg Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 492001 6 - Shankarlal Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani, R/o Sindhi Colony, Durg Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 492001. 7 - Smt. Usha Godwani W/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani, R/o Shadani Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 492001 8 - Pawan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani, R/o Shadani Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 492001. 9 - Bhawan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani R/o Gurunanak Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.10 17:53:19 +0530 2 10 - Sanjay Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani R/o Shadani Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 492001. 11 - Roshan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani R/o Shadani Nagar, Sindhi Colony, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 492001. 12 - Smt. Ritika Tejwani, D/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani W/o Mahesh Tejwani, R/o Gani No. 2, Kastruba Nagar, Near Krishan Mandir, Jari Patka, Nagpur, Maharashtra. 13 - Smt. Rekha Bai W/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani, R/o Behind Bus Stand, Gunderdehi, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Patankar and Mr. Om Kukreja, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.R. Patankar and Mr. Om Kukreja, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s): “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that in the interest of justice, the Hon’ble Court be 3 pleased to call for the record of the matter and after examining the same be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 3.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5917 of 2024 in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.5917 of 2024 (Kailash Chandra Godwani and others v. Smt. Krishna Lekhwani and another), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/respondents is disposed of. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioners/respondents before the learned Single Judge is that Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani and Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani were real brothers and they were owners of land bearing Khasra No.140 area 0.077 hectare situated at village Phulgaon, PH No.25 Tahsil and Distt. Durg. After death of Kallumal and Bhajanmal in the year 2021 and 2019 respectively, aforesaid land was mutated in the name of the respondents and appellant in revenue record as they are sons/daughters/wife of Kallumal and Bhajanmal. Against that mutation order, appeal was preferred by the appellant before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg bearing Appeal No.202401100400144/A-6/2023-2024 (Annexure-P/4), stating inter alia that Kallumal and Bhajanmal had executed Will (unregistered) on 30.3.2008 in her favour. In that appeal, Sub 4 Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg directed that since there was title dispute between the parties, therefore, the parties may resolve their dispute by filing civil suit before the competent court. That order was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg by filing Second Appeal bearing No.297/A-6 year 2023-24 (Annexure-P/5), in which the Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg vide Order dated 22.8.2024. Order passed by the Commissioner was put to challenge by the appellant before Board of Revenue by filing revision bearing Revision Case No.RN/05/R.A-6/212/2024, in which, the Board of Revenue admitted the revision and passed order of status-quo. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid action, the respondents/writ petitioners have preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.5917 of 2024, which was disposed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 03.12.2024 observing that grievance as projected by the respondents and observation made by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg is that since there was title dispute between the parties, as the respondents are claiming their title on the basis of inheritance/succession and further they were challenged the genuineness of the alleged Will executed by Kallumal and Bhajanmal in favour of the appellant. In other words, appellant was claiming the title over the disputed property on the basis of 5 Will. As such, there was clear cut title dispute between the parties. It was settled preposition of law that once the title dispute was revealed before the revenue Court, then the revenue court ought not to have interfered in the dispute and the parties ought to have been directed to resolve their dispute from competent civil court, which was rightly been done by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg and the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg. But the Board of Revenue unnecessarily admitted the revision and passed order of status-quo. It was further held that in a catena of judgment by the Apex Court, it has been held that title dispute cannot be decided by revenue Court, rather it can be decided only by civil Court, therefore, without entering into merits of the case, order of status-quo dated 27.8.2024 passed by Board of Revenue, was quashed and further proceedings of revision pending before Board of Revenue was stayed. The parties were directed to file appropriate civil suit before the competent civil Court to resolve title dispute persist between them. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge 6 is not in accordance with law and no disputed question of facts are involved requiring evidence but without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by relying upon the settled preposition of law that once the title dispute was revealed before the revenue Court, then the revenue court ought not to have interfered in the dispute and the parties ought to have been directed to resolve their dispute from competent civil Court, which was rightly been done by Sub 7 Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg and the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, but the Board of Revenue unnecessarily admitted the revision and passed order of status-quo and further, learned Single Judge held that that title dispute cannot be decided by revenue Court, rather it can be decided only by civil Court. As such, learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order of status-quo dated 27.8.2024 passed by Board of Revenue and further proceedings of revision pending before Board of Revenue has rightly been stayed. 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu