1 CGHC010118272020 2026:CGHC:39950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 373 of 2020 Putar Bai, W/o Amoldas Satnami, Aged About 41 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Karhi, Post Office Jewra, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shatrughan, S/o Gokul Satnami, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Karhi, Post Office Jewra, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Collector, Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub - Divisional Officer, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tahsildar, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.09.16 17:36:51 +0530 2 For State/respondents No.2 to 5 : Shri Siddhant Tiwari, PL. SB: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 11/09/2026 1. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:- “(i)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and also be pleased to allow the petition and kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 (Annexure p-4), passed in the application of 178 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 5 to decide the shares in the ratio of 4/5 (80% share of the disputed property) to the petitioner and 1/5 (20% share of the disputed property) to the respondent no. 1. (iii)Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. (iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also, kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.34A/2014 before the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Bemetara in which the judgment and decree has been passed on 15/02/2016 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, however while deciding issue No.5, the learned trial court observed the rights of the parties. He would submit that the civil suit of respondent No.1 has been dismissed and the first appeal filed by the respondent No.1 has also been dismissed against which a second appeal is pending before this Court. He would submit that in the meantime, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 178 of the Chattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 in which the Tehsildar has passed an order on 6/05/2019 whereby the Tehsildar, Bemetara has directed to prepare the fard bhatwara with respect to ½ – ½ share of the subject property in favour of the applicant and non-applicant which is under challenge in the present writ petition. He would further submit that in the judgment passed by the learned trial court dated 15/02/2016 there is an observation about rights of the parties and the petitioner is entitled for 80% of the total subject property instead of 50% which has been over looked by the Tehsildar in its order, therefore the petition may be allowed and the order passed by the Tehsildar, Bemetara may be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the 4 petitioner and would submit that before the learned trial court in the suit filed by respondent No.1, the petitioner had also filed her counter claim which has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 15/02/2016 and dismissal of the counter claim of the petitioner has not been challenged in any higher forum and that attains its finality. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved an application for partition of the subject property in which the Tehsilar has passed an order with respect to 50% of the share to be separated for each of the parties. He would further submit that against the order passed by the Tehsildar, Bemetara, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code, therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the judgment and decree dated 15/02/2016 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class-II, Bemetara in Civil Suit No.34A/2014, it transpires that the petitioner has also filed her counter claim before the learned trial court which was also dismissed, however the petitioner fails to demonstrate that she had challenged the dismissal of the counter claim in any higher forum and therefore the dismissal of the counter claim attains its finality. It further transpires that the petitioner had filed an application for partition of the subject property in which 5 the Tehsilar has passed an order on 06/05/2019 whereby he has directed to prepare a fard bhatwara report with respect to half share of the property to each of the parties. The Tehsildar has passed the order dated 06/05/2019 by exercising it’s jurisdiction under Section 178 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 which is appealable before the appellate forum as provided under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Code. Under the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition against the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 06/05/2019 when an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge gouri