1 CGHC010301362026 2026:CGHC:34866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1001 of 2026 1 - Khorbahra (Now Dead) Through Legal Representative Chainsingh S/o Late Shri Khorbahra Aged About 56 Years R/o Bani, Nawagaon, Tah. Dhamdha, Dist. Durg, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Ramawatar S/o Late Shri Laxman Gond R/o Vill.- Nawagaon, Post- Raunda, Tah. Dhamdha, Dist.- Durg, C.G. 2 - Premlal S/o Late Shri Laxman Gond R/o Vill.- Nawagaon, Post- Raunda, Tah. Dhamdha, Dist.- Durg, C.G. 3 - Anupman Bai D/o Late Shri Laxman Gond R/o Vill.- Nawagaon, Post- Raunda, Tah. Dhamdha, Dist.- Durg, C.G. 4 - Ramshila Bai D/o Late Shri Laxman Gond R/o Vill.- Nawagaon, Post- Raunda, Tah. Dhamdha, Dist.- Durg, C.G. 5 - Janokiya W/o Late Khusku R/o Vill. - Pagbandhi, Tah. Dhamdha, Dist. Durg, C.G. 6 - Asha Bai W/o Arjun R/o Vill.- Dhourabhata, Tah. Lohar, Dist.- Kabirdham, C.G. 7 - Rukhmani W/o Seyuk R/o Vill.- Saradabri, Tah.- Chhuikhadan, Dist.- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Caveator : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order On Board 07.08.2026 1. Present is the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 10.07.2026 passed by Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case No.RN/05/R/A-27/158/2014 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and order passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division dated 22.05.2014 has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the parties are closely related and an application filed by the respondents for partition of the suit properties before the Tehsildar Dhamdha, District Durg was allowed vide order dated 07.09.2011. The said order of partition passed by Tehsildar Dhamdha District Durg was challenged by the Khorbahra since deceased before the Collector Durg by filing revision which was decided on 11.02.2013 by which the Collector Durg set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar Dhamdha and order that the parties may get their title decided from the competent Civil Court and further proceedings of the partition was stayed for three months. 3. The stay order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the Collector Durg was further challenged by the Khorbahra since deceased before the Commissioner Durg Division which has also been dismissed 3 vide order dated 22.05.2014 and further affirmed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur vide order dated 10.07.2026 which is under challenge by this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not required to file the civil suit but it’s the respondents who ought to have file the civil suit as they are raising dispute regarding title of the subject property. He would also submit that the petitioners have raised their claim before the Tehsildar that the subject property has already been partitioned and rights and title have already been separated, therefore, there is no need for further partition and no order of further partition can be passed by the Tehsildar. Although the Collector Durg has allowed the revision filed by the Khorbahra since deceased and set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar but has observed that the parties may get their title from a competent Civil Court. He would further submit that once the Collector Durg has considered that the order passed by the Tehsildar Dhamdha is not sustainable, they ought not to have pass the order regarding filing of the civil suit by the parties concerned. The Commissioner Durg as well as Board of Revenue has also passed the order mechanically having not considered the true aspect of the case, therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and the order of the Tehsildar may be restored. 5. On the other hand, Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents on caveat opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and would submit that the order passed by the Collector 4 Durg is in accordance with law as the Collector Durg has rightly considered the dispute between the parties involved their title as per the provisions of Section 178 of Land Revenue Code, 1959, the further proceedings of the partition was stayed for three months for decision of title of the parties by the competent Civil Court as the serious question of title was raised before the Revenue Boards in the partition proceeding. There is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Collector Durg as well as the Commissioner Durg and Board of Revenue and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. From the perusal of the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 07.09.2011, it refers the evidences of the parties as well as the claim of the respective parties, earlier there was a partition which was denied by the other party and that there are conflicting claim of the respective parties with respect to the subject property. 8. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “Provided that if any question of title is raised the Tahsildar shall stay the proceeding before him for a period of three months to facilitate the institution of a civil suit for determination of the question of title.” 9. Then the question of title has been raised by the parties in the 5 partition proceeding, the Revenue Authority ought to have stayed the proceeding for three months to facilitate the institution of a civil suit for declaration of question of title. Here the Tehsildar has proceeded in partition proceeding and has passed an order of partition without considering the provision of Section 178 and, therefore, the Collector Durg has exercised its jurisdiction and has stayed the proceeding of partition for three months and directed the parties to get their title decided by a competent Civil Court. Admittedly, none of the parties have approached the Civil Court for decision of their title and the order of the Collector Durg has been challenged before the Commissioner which has been dismissed by the orders dated 22.05.2014 by the Commissioner Durg and 10.07.2026 by the Board of Revenue. Since the order passed by Collector Durg does not suffers from any perversity or jurisdictional error, there is no illegality or perversity found by this Court in passed by Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue. 10.Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Saxena