1 CGHC010051602021 2026:CGHC:40773 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1086 of 2021 1 - Maniram S/o Late Jethuram Gond Aged About 60 Years Caste Gond, R/o Khargahna, Police Station And Tahsil- Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub- Divisional Officer Kota Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Additional Tahsil Ganiyari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chaitram S/o Late Jethuram Gond Caste Gond, R/o Khargahna, Police Station And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State :- Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, P.L. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Respondents No. 6 :- Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18.09.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by respondent no. 2 in Revenue Revision Case No. RN/02/R/A-6/34/2017 village Khargahna, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), between "Chaitram Vs. Maniram" (Annexure- P/1). 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is directed against the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the revision preferred by respondent No. 6 was allowed and the order dated 21.12.2016 passed by respondent No. 3 was set aside, thereby restoring the order dated 27.05.2015 passed by respondent No. 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had moved an application under 3 Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, for correction/updation of the revenue record in respect of Khasra No. 618, admeasuring 1.20 acres, situated at Village Khargahna, on the basis of partition between the parties. Respondent No. 6, in his reply to the said application, had admitted that the land in question had fallen to the share of the petitioner in partition. It is further submitted that the Patwari, after enquiry and preparation of panchnama, reported that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question pursuant to the partition. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 5, by order dated 21.08.2014, allowed the petitioner's application and directed deletion of the name of respondent No. 6 and recording of the petitioner's name in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 4, which was allowed by order dated 27.05.2015. The petitioner thereafter preferred a second appeal before respondent No. 3, which was allowed by order dated 21.12.2016. However, respondent No. 2, by the impugned order dated 20.01.2021, allowed the revision preferred by respondent No. 6 and set aside the order dated 21.12.2016. Learned counsel submits that respondent No. 2 failed to consider the admission made by respondent No. 6 regarding the partition and the petitioner's possession over the land in question. He further submits that, even from the reply filed by respondent No. 6, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties is essentially with 4 regard to the amount of compensation. Respondent No. 6 has expressed his willingness to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- out of the total compensation amount. According to learned counsel, such stand itself demonstrates that respondent No. 6 has, in substance, admitted the factum of partition between the parties and the petitioner's entitlement in respect of the land in question. It is contended that respondent No. 2 has erred in holding that, in the absence of a formal partition deed on record, it could not be concluded that the land in question had fallen to the share of the petitioner. Such finding, according to learned counsel, ignores the admission of respondent No. 6, the enquiry report of the Patwari, the panchnama and other material available on record. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material evidence and is contrary to the record and law, and is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submits that, although respondent No. 6 had stated in his reply filed before the concerned Tahsildar regarding the partition between the parties, no proper partition had, in fact, taken place in accordance with law. It is contended that the Tahsildar, relying upon such assertion, illegally passed the order in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the said order was rightly set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer has subsequently been affirmed by the Board 5 of Revenue. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. Learned State counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed by the competent revenue authority after considering the material available on record. It is submitted that no procedural illegality or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated by the petitioner warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Learned State counsel further submits that the dispute essentially pertains to the claim of the parties over the land in question and the alleged partition between them, which involves disputed questions of fact. Such disputed questions cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that, from the order-sheet, it is apparent that the notice issued to the petitioner could not be served and was returned unserved on 09.12.2019. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order was not passed without notice to the petitioner, as the notice issued by the revisional authority had remained unserved. 6 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record, it appears that respondent No. 6, in his reply filed before the concerned Tahsildar, had admitted the factum of partition between the parties and had stated that the partition had taken place, pursuant to which the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records. It further appears that the dispute between the parties is essentially with regard to the amount of compensation arising out of such partition. 8. In view of the aforesaid admission of respondent No. 6, the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue that there was no material to establish the partition between the parties does not appear to be sustainable. Once the factum of partition was admitted by respondent No. 6 in his reply, the same could not have been brushed aside merely on the ground that no formal partition deed was available on record. 9. However, if respondent No. 6 is aggrieved by the alleged partition or the consequential mutation of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, it would be open to him to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent civil Court and seek adjudication of his rights in accordance with law. The question relating to the entitlement and apportionment of compensation, being dependent upon the respective rights of the 7 parties over the land in question, would also be required to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 passed by respondent No. 2, Board of Revenue, in Revenue Revision Case No. RN/02/R/A-6/34/2017, is hereby set aside. The order dated 21.12.2016 passed by respondent No. 3, Additional Commissioner, as well as the order passed by respondent No. 5, Tahsildar, are affirmed. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the ultimate civil rights of the parties in respect of the land in question. Respondent No. 6 shall be at liberty to approach the competent civil Court for challenging the alleged partition, mutation and for determination of his rights, if so advised. The issue relating to the entitlement and apportionment of compensation shall also be open to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha