1 / 7 2025:CGHC:14852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.3018 of 2019 Reserved on 20.03.2025 Pronounced on 27.03.2025 1 - Chandra Kishore Tiwari, Aged About 48 Years, 2 - Arvind Tiwari Aged About 44 Years, 3 - Atul Tiwari Aged About 36 Years, Petitioner No.1 to 3 are legal Heirs Of Late Rewaram Sharma, Resident Of Vasundhara, Builders, Ghadi Chowk, Behind Collectors Office, House Of Shri Kalika Singh, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) 4 - Alok Tiwari S/o Late Revaram Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o 10, Udyan Marg, Choubey Colony, Near Shahkari Sadan, Raipur (CG) 5 - Smt. Kiran D/o Late Revaram Sharma, Aged About 50 Years W/o Shri Bhupendra Shukla, R/o In Front Of Police Line, Shailendra Nagar, Government Accommodation, Raipur 6 - Smt. Alka D/o Late Revaram Sharma Aged About 42 Years W/o Shri Sharad Sharma, R/o Near Kankali Talab, Kankali Para, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Late Mukutmani Sharma Aged About 44 Years 2 - Prabodh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Mukutmani Sharma Aged About 42 Years 3 - Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Mukutmani Sharma Aged About 38 Years All are resident of Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choubey Colony, Raipur., 4 - Krishna Kumar S/o Late Mukutmani Sharma Aged About 53 Years R/o Behind Vasundhar Society, Chagorabhata, Raipur SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 2 / 7 5 - Satish Kumar Sharma (Sport Officer) S/o Late Mukutmani Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o Hardi Bazar, Banwasi College, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, (CG) 6 - The Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Circuit Court At Raipur. 7.- The Upper Collector, Raipur. 8 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur. 9 - The Tahsildar Raipur. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri B. P. Sharma appears along with Shri M. L. Saket and Shri K. N. Singh, learned counsel For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Shri H. B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appears along with Smt. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No.7 to 9 Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Order 1. Challenge to this petition is the order dated 19.09.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed in Revenue Revision Case No.RN/14/R/A-27/297/2008, whereby the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, (Circuit Court at Raipur), allowed the revision petition preferred by non-applicants (Pradeep Kumar Sharma and others), while reversing the order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur in Revenue Appeal Case No.83/A-27/2006-07 and, consequent upon that, the application filed by said Revaram (Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”) has been rejected. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that a proceeding for partition has been initiated by one Revaram Sharma (Since deceased now represented by his legal representatives Chandra Kishore Tiwari and 3 / 7 others) by moving an application (Annexure P-3) under Section 178 of the Code, 1959, before the Naib Tahsildar, Raipur on 20.04.1990 with regard to the land situated at village Sonpairi, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur. According to him, an oral partition was effected between him and the heirs of his brother Mukutmani Sharma before the Panch on 22.04.1988, where the land in question described at para 3 of the said application has fallen in his share and, therefore, it was prayed that the said land be given to him in partition. The said proceeding was registered as Revenue Case No.3/A-27/1989-90. 3. In reply to the aforesaid application, it was stated by the non-applicants that the land in question was never put in partition and prays for rejection of the said application. 4. In the said proceeding, the Naib Tahsildar, Raipur vide its order dated 17.01.1994, issued a direction to the Revenue Inspector to submit its report regarding the fard bantwara and, being aggrieved, a revision was preferred by the non-applicants before the Additional Collector, Raipur, who in turn, vide its order dated 28.10.1995 observed that since the alleged order has been passed in contravention of Rules 4 & 5 framed under Section 178 of the Code, 1959, therefore, while observing as such, the matter was remanded to the Naib Tahsildar for its decision in accordance with law. 5. It is to be seen that during the pendency of the said proceedings, a suit, being Civil Suit No.443-A/2002, was instituted by said Revaram against the non-applicants before the Fourth Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur claiming declaration of title and injunction with regard to the 4 / 7 land in question situated at the said Village Sonpairi of Tahsil Aarang, on the basis of the alleged oral mutual partition dated 22.04.1988 effected before the Panch and based upon which, a partition was claimed by him under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 and during the pendency of the suit, the Additional Tahsildar, Raipur in Revenue Case No.30/A/27 Year 96-97, upon remand, has passed the order (Annexure P/8) on 11.09.2001 by observing, inter alia, that since the suit for declaration of title and injunction is pending in relation to the land in question before the competent Civil Court, therefore, no order could be passed in the said application, as was moved by said Revaram on 20.04.1990 under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 and, accordingly, the parties were directed to get their title declared/settled from the said competent Court. 6. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal, being Revenue Appeal Case No.207/A-27/Year 2003-2004, was preferred by said Revaram before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, who in turn, vide its order dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P/9) has allowed the same and directed for partition based upon the earlier partition effected between the parties as well as based upon the “Fard Bantwara” (Annexure P-2) submitted by the Patwari and, the order as passed by the said authority was affirmed further by the Additional Collector, Raipur, vide its order dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P/11) in appeal preferred by the non-applicants in Revenue Appeal Case No.83/A- 27/2006-07. 7. It is to be seen that the suit, being Civil Suit No.443-A/2002, as was instituted by the applicant-Revaram before the Civil Court for 5 / 7 declaration of title and injunction with regard to the land in question of said Village Sonpairi, Tahsil Aarang, was dismissed by the said Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2005 holding, inter alia, that the applicant-Revaram has failed to establish the fact that the alleged mutual partition was effected before the Panch on 22.04.1988 and accordingly, he was not held to be the owner of the alleged suit land, i.e. the land described at para 3 of the application filed by him under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 and, the appeal, preferred there against, was also found to be dismissed by the District Judge, Raipur, vide its judgment and decree dated 06.10.2005 in Civil Appeal No.11- A/2005. It appears further that the aforesaid judgment and decree was questioned by the applicant-Revaram before this Court in Appeal, being Second Appeal No.135/2005, but the same was withdrawn vide order dated 13.02.2019. 8. What is, therefore, reflected from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the claim of the applicant -Revaram seeking partition under Section 178 of the Code, 1959, based upon the alleged oral mutual partition effected on 22.04.1988 before the Panch, was, however, not found to be approved by the competent civil Court having its territorial jurisdiction. It is to be seen further that during the pendency of the said suit, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, vide its order dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P/9), as found herein- above, has directed for the partition based upon the alleged earlier partition as well as based upon the “Fard Bantwara” (Annexure P-2) submitted by the concerned Patwari and, the finding so recorded was 6 / 7 affirmed further by the Additional Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P/11) in Appeal preferred by the non-applicants. 9. It appears further that the aforesaid order (Annexure P-11) passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur was reversed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court at Raipur) vide its order impugned in Revision preferred by the non-applicants, wherein, it has been held that since the title of the applicant-Revaram with regard to the land in question was not found to be declared in his favour, therefore, in absence of his title over the land in question, he would not be entitled to get the partition as claimed and, accordingly the application made by him under Section 178 of the Code, 1959, has been rejected while allowing the revision preferred by the non-applicants. 10. True, it is that the claim of said Revaram for declaration of his title over the land in question described in para-3 of the application based upon the alleged partition, effected on 22.04.1988, was not upheld, but, the fact remains that despite of the said finding, he is still one of the owner of it, though not exclusively, but his application made under Section 178 of the Code, 1959, however, cannot be held to be rejected merely on the ground that he was not held to be the owner of the alleged land. The observation of the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur to this effect is, therefore, not sustainable, in view of the provisions prescribed under Section 178 of the Code, 1959, and, deserves to be interfered. 11. What is to be seen further at this juncture that although the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, vide its order dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P-9) has directed for partition in relation to the land in 7 / 7 question described in para 3 of the said application filed under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 by the applicant-Revaram, based upon its earlier partition as well as based upon the “Fard Bantwara” (Annexure P-2) submitted by the concerned Patwari, affirmed further by the Additional Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 19.02.2008 (Annexure P-11), but, since the authenticity of the alleged partition effected on 22.04.1988 was, however, not found to be approved by the Civil Court in the said suit instituted by the applicant-Revaram, therefore, the said orders dated 04.03.2005 and 19.02.2008 (Annexure P-9 and P-11) deserve to be modified to the extent that the parties are entitled to get the partition with regard to the land in question described in para-3 of the said application filed under Section 178 of the Code, 1959 only based upon the said “Fard Bantwara” (Annexure P-2) as submitted by the concerned Patwari and not based upon the earlier partition as the same was not found to be approved by the competent Civil Court. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane