2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 1057 of 2025 Amritlal S/o Dukhu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Tala, Tehsil Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - Gandarai S/o Dukhu R/o Village Tala, Tehsil Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Lalita Bai D/o Dukhu, W/o Subhash R/o Village Tala, Tehsil Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Safed Bai D/o Dukhu, W/o Kunjbihari R/o Village Tala, Tehsil Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Purendra Khichariya, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Pushpenbdra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 11/08/2025 passed in Revenue Revision case No. R.N.-22/R/A-27/106/2024 by the Revenue Board Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court- Raipur. By the impugned order the revision of the petitioner filed under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short Code of 1959) was dismissed. 3. Facts which emerges from the impugned order that the petitioner moved an application before the Tehsildar – Pithora on 26/08/2011 under section 178 of the Code of 1959 for partition of the property comprised in piece of Khasra No. 23 and 24 area 2.73 hectares each, total 5.46 hectares for short suit ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.11 16:58:51 +0530 -2- property. According to the petitioner’s case, the suit property was recorded in the joint name of the petitioner and the respondents and they are in possessions of the respective share therefore on the basis of possessions a partition may be done. Thereafter, the Tehsildar - Pithora registered a Revenue case Publication was made and thereafter on 01/07/2013 passed an order of division of holdings. Later on, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer which was dismissed vide its order dated 29/09/2014. Challenging the same, the respondent No.1 filed an second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer for deciding the appeal of the respondent No.1 on merits. Against which, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is bad in law. He further submits that the respondent had already relinquished their right over the suit property and an agreement to this effect is also been executed. He further submits that learned Additional Commissioner committed an error in remanding the matter to decide the case on merits. Therefore, the impugned order deserve to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submission submits that in fact the application for partition of the suit property was filed by the petitioner himself and his application was allowed, challenging the same the respondents have filed an appeal before the S.D.O. which was dismissed on limitation. Therefore taking into consideration of the fact that a party should not be condemn unheard, the additional Commissioner has remanded the matter in the Second Appeal to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. -3- 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an application for partition before the Tehsildar which was allowed and later on the appeal having being dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer being barred by the limitation. The learned Additional Commissioner has only remanded the matter for decision making of the case on merits before the S.D.O. The petitioner has all right to agitate his claim before the Sub Divisional Officer and this Court does not find any good grounds to allow this writ petition under articles 227 of the Constitution of India as the finding recorded by the learned Revenue Board in the impugned order appears to be based on proper appreciation facts and circumstances of the case. It does not appear to be illegal or perverse. Therefore, this writ petition fails and dismissed. 8. All the pending applications are also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish