1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 478 of 2019 1 - Shivdayal S/o Shri Baliram, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Village & Police Station & Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Shivdayal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village & Police Station & Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 23/01/2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner- Shivdayal is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 31/10/2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case No.403/A-70/2004- 2005, whereby, while upholding the order, dated 13/06/2000 passed by Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No.638/A-70/1997-98, held that the revenue authorities has a prima-facie jurisdiction to examine the ownership of the parties with regard to the land in question. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that an application was made by the petitioner under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.24 18:13:50 +0530 2 Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”), before the Tahsildar, Pamgarh, alleging, inter-alia, that part of the land bearing Khasra No.682 recorded in his name in revenue paper has been encroached illegally by the respondent- Ramesh Kumar, who is his son. Upon receiving the notice of the said proceeding, an objection was raised by the respondent that the property in question was originally held by his grandfather, namely, Baliram and after his death, his interest is also involved therein, therefore, the proceeding, as was initiated by the petitioner under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, deserves to be rejected. 3. The Tahsildar, Pamgarh vide its order dated 23/07/1997 (Annexure P- 2) has allowed the said application and directed for removal of the alleged encroachment as made by the respondent while imposing fine amount of Rs.100/- and, being aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pamgarh, where appeal was registered as Appeal Case No.1-A /70/1997-98 and vide its order dated 08/01/1998 (Annexure P-3), the appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed with an observation that the respondent may approach the competent Civil Court in order to get his title declared. 4. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur where the said appeal was registered as Appeal Case No.638/A-70/1997-98. It appears from perusal of the entire order sheets of the concerned authority that despite an objection being raised by the petitioner that the appeal, as was preferred by respondent, was barred by time, but 3 without considering the same and even without noticing the petitioner, the said appeal was allowed vide its order dated 13/06/2000 (Annexure P-4), while setting aside the order as passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Pamgarh with an observation that the revenue authorities have prima- facie jurisdiction to decide the question of title of the parties. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, alleging therein that the objection as raised with regard to filing of the said appeal, the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur has not decided the same, but the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned, instead of considering the same has affirmed the said order as passed by the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur by observing, inter-alia, that since there is a family dispute between the parties regarding the land in question, therefore, the application as made by the petitioner under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 would not be attracted and, accordingly, revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 6. True, it is that the alleged objection made by the petitioner was not considered either by the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur or by the Board of Revenue in its order impugned, but what is reflected from perusal of the entire proceedings, as observed herein-above, that the application made by the petitioner under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 was held to be not maintainable, in view of the facts that the interest of the respondent appears to be involved in the land in question. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order impugned holding the application filed under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 is not maintainable. But, the observation made therein that the revenue 4 authority has a prima-facie jurisdiction to examine the ownership of the parties in relation to the land in question is, however, wholly irrelevant and not sustainable in the eye of law as it is well settled principle of law that the question of title could be determined only by the competent Civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction and the revenue authority has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to examine the same, as observed by the Court below. The observation, as made by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, while affirming the observation made by the Upper Commissioner, Bilaspur, in this regard is hereby quashed. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). -Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Chandrakant