1 2026:CGHC:1801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP No. 4212 of 2005 1 - (Deleted) Shri Shankar Das As Per Honble Court Order Dated 08-08-2018 2 - Smt. Krishna Das W/o W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Das Aged About 58 Years Household Lady By Profession, Resident Of A House At Prince Colony, Marble Line, Moreshwar Rao Ward, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur City, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Azam Khan S/o Mohd. Gani @ Navab Bhai Kabadi, Aged About 26 Years R/o Infront Of Raja Auto Centre, Near Masjid, House Of Tarun Chatterjee, Noorani Chowk, Raja Talab, (Pandri Tarai) Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Board Of Revenue Circuit Bench, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State. :Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 & 3. :None Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.05.2005 passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur Circuit 2 Court, Raipur in Revenue Case No. 44/A-70/98-99, whereby the second revenue appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The subject matter, in brief, is that the petitioner had prosecuted a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 12-A/1987 before the learned 9th Civil Judge Class II, Raipur against co-owner of the property. The said civil suit was for partition and separate possession of the suit properties and after full-fledged trial, the said civil suit bearing No. 12-A/1987 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner through the judgment and decree dated 04.01.1989 and the petitioner was held entitled for her 1/7th share over the suit property and the learned trial Court referred the matter to the District Collector for execution of the decree of partition as provided under Section 54 of the CPC. The District Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 21.08.1995 passed the order of partition of the suit property as per the partition memo (Fard Batwara) submitted by the Tahsildar in execution of the judgment and decree dated 04.01.1989 passed in 12-A/1987 and liberty was granted to the parties to move their application for separate possession of the property of their respective shares. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tahsildar for possession of the property of her share as per the partition effected between the parties in compliance of the judgment and decree dated 04.01.1989. The Tahsildar has decided the application of the petitioner on 23.09.1997 and rejected the application holding that over the land in question, there was a construction of house and the application of Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is maintainable only with respect to the agricultural land and therefore, the matter pertains to partition of the house there is no order for delivery of possession of the suit property to the petitioner and the same was not maintainable. 3. The order passed by Tahsildar, Raipur was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Raipur by filing first appeal under 3 Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The SDO Revenue Raipur also dismissed first appeal filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 07.06.1999 holding that as per the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Court, the partition of the property was already carried out and decree was executed by the Tahsildar, Raipur. vide its order dated 21.08.1995. The present is an application for possession not in execution of the decree but a separate application for possession of the subject property and since the house is already constructed over the subject land, Tahsildar was not competent to entertain the application for possession and by affirming the order passed by Tahsildar, dismissed the first appeal. 4. The order dated 07.06.1999 passed by SDO Revenue, Raipur was further challenged by the petitioner before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur by filing the her second revenue appeal and the second revenue appeal is also dismissed affirming the orders passed by Tahsildar as well as SDO, Revenue, Raipur which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although there is a decree for partition of the property, but when the Collector has directed the parties to approach before the Tahsildar for possession of the property, the petitioner had filed an application for possession of the property. Although the application bears with the provision of Section 250 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 but in fact it was an application for possession in pursuance of the execution of the decree and the Tahsildar, Raipur has already passed the order for partition of the property on 21.08.1995, therefore, instead of dismissing the application, the Tahsildar should have deliver the possession of the property of the share of the petitioner, and the SDO Revenue as well as Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh has mechanically passed the order without considering the true aspect of the application as well as the issue involved in the present case. There is no dispute with 4 respect to the shares of the parties over the subject property and it is only the dispute with respect to the possession after the partition. He would further submits that the (Fard Batwara) approved by the District Collector was challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 11.11.1997 and (Fard Batwara) was affirmed, yet the petitioner is deprived from separate possession of her property. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by Tahsildar, Raipur, SDO Revenue Raipur as well as Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court, Raipur be set aside and the possession of the subject property to the extent of share of the petitioner may be directed to be deliver to her in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State though opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he would submits that the application filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Revenue Courts as the application was filed under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and there are certain limitation under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code to entertain the same. The petitioner can very well avail her remedy before the learned Civil Court to get the decree executed and to obtain possession in the execution of the decree. Since it is a partition of the house, the application under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code is not maintainable and the Revenue Courts have rightly dismissed the same, therefore, the petitioner have no merits in the petition and the same is liable. 7. None appears for Respondent No.2 despite service of notice upon him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition. 9. It is not in dispute that a decree for partition has been passed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to her 1/7th share over the suit property. The suit property is the land of 4 different khasra numbers and total area 1.90 acre (0.769 hectare) and a house situated in the abadi land of village Nawagaon Tahsil 5 Dhamtari District Raipur. It is also not in dispute the petitioner was held entitled for 1/7th share and the matter was referred to District Collector for execution of the partition as provided under Section 54 of the CPC. In execution of the decree Fard Batwara was prepared by the Superintendent, Land Record, Diverted Land Urban Area, Raipur on 05.06.1992, which has been annexed at Page No. 52 as Annexure P/7 in the writ petition. In the said Fard Batwara the share of the petitioner was separated. It also transpires from the order-sheet dated 07.03.1994 passed by learned 12th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur (Annexure P/8) that an application under Order 21 Rule 35 and read with Section order 21 Rule 97 of CPC for which by the judgment debtor was rejected. Vde order dated 21.08.1995 the District Collector has approved the (Fard Batwara) as submitted before him pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 04.01.1989 and directed the parties to take recourse to law for separate possession of the property. It further transpires that the Respondent No.2 had challenged the order dated 21.08.1995 passed by District Collector, Raipur before Additional Commissioner, Raipur which was dismissed on 11.11.1997 (Annexure P/10). 10. By that as it may, the facts remains that the decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to her 1/7th share over the suit property and the partition has been affected and approved by the District Collector vide its order dated 21.08.1995. So far as the physical possession of the property of the share of the plaintiff or the other parties of the suit is concerned, the District Collector in its order directed the parties to make appropriate application for possession of their share of land before the Tahsildar, however, the application made by the petitioner for possession of her share of the property before the Tahsildar, the same was rejected holding that over the subject land there was a construction and there is no direction by the Civil Court for handing over the possession after its partition. The Tahsildar 6 have no jurisdiction to deliver possession of the house while exercising its under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 11. It is necessary here to note the provisions of Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, which is as under: “250. Reinstatement of bhumiswami improperly dispossessed. [(1) For the purpose of this section and Section 250-A bhumiswami shall include occupancy tenant and Government lessee.] [(1-a) If a bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the bhoonmiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code, the bhumiswami or his successor- in-interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession- (a) in case of bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of Section 165- (i) before the 1st July, 1978 in cases of unauthorised dispossession prior to the 1st July, 1976; and (ii) in any other cases within five years from the date of dispos- session or from the date on which the possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be; (b) in case of a bhumiswami not covered by clause (a), within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be.] [(1-b) The Tahsildar shall on coming to know that a bhumiswami has been dispossessed of his land otherwise than in due course of law, suo motu start proceedings under this section.] (2) The Tahsildar shall, after making an enquiry into the respective claims of the parties, decide the application and when he orders the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami, put him in possession of the land. [2-a) The proceedings started under this section shall after receipt of reply from the other party, continue from day to day unless for reasons to be recorded in writing a longer adjournment is considered necessary and in that case a copy of the order sheet containing the reasons for such adjournment shall be sent to the Collector.] (3) The Tahsildar may at any stage of the enquiry pass an interim order for handing over the possession of the land to the bhumiswami, occupancy tenant or Government lessee, as the case may be, if he finds that he was dispossessed by the opposite party within six months prior to the submission of the application or commencement of suo motu proceedings under this section. In such case the opposite party shall, if necessary, be ejected under orders of the Tahsildar.] (4) When an interim order has been passed under sub-section (3) the opposite party may be required by the Tahsildar to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of land until the final order is passed by the Tahsildar. (5) If the person executing a bond is found to have entered into or taken possession of the land in contravention of the bond, the Tahsildar may forfeit the bond in whole or in part and may recover such amount as an arrear of land revenue. 7 (6) If the order passed under sub-section (2) is in favour of the applicant the Tahsildar shall also award compensation to be paid to the applicant by the opposite party which shall be at the prorata rate of two hundred and fifty rupees per hectare per year.] (7) The compensation awarded under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. (8) When an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami the Tahsildar may require the opposite party to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of the land in contravention of the order.] (9) Where an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession of the bhumiswami, the opposite party shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees: Provided that it shall not be competent to the Tahsildar to impose a fine of amount exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees but if in any case he considers that circumstances of the case warrant imposition of a higher fine, he may refer the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer who shall, after giving the party concerned an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders in respect of fine as he may deem fit.” 12. Admittedly, over the subject land, there was a construction for which the petitioner moved her application for possession. It is not the case herein that the Respondent No.2 dispossess the plaintiff otherwise in due course of law or she was unauthorizedly possessed the subject property. There is also a restriction that such Bhumiswami can file an application within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date of which the possession of such person become unauthorized as the case may be. However, in the present case it is not the situation, but in the present case, a decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to her 1/7th share and the other part of the property was with respect to the shares of the defendants including the Respondent No.2. With respect to physical possession of the property pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 04.01.1989, the plaintiff had the remedy before the competent Civil Court, to pray for final decree and/or in execution proceeding and certainly not through the application filed her under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. 13. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the petition, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by Tahsildar, Raipur dated 23.09.1997, the order dated 07.06.1999 passed by SDO, Revenue, Raipur 8 as well as order dated 11.05.2005 passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court at Raipur. 14. Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merits and liable to be and hereby dismissed. 15. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate alternative remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.02.03 17:12:47 +0530