1 CGHC010221502021 2026:CGHC:42340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3719 of 2021 1 - Itvari Yadav S/o Sudharam Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Itawa , Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kejau Prasad S/o Ganga Prasad Yadav Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Itawa, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through President, Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sub Divisional Officer, Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar Office Of Tehsildar , Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Govind S/o Roop Singh Yadav Aged About 59 Years R/o Kasodi (Beltukri), Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Gangabaru S/o Mahigal Yadav Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Itawa , Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Vishram S/o Mahigal Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Itawa , Tehsil Masturi , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Janiram S/o Kusuwa Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Itawa , Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 9 - Maniram S/o Kusuwa Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Itawa Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 10 - Collector Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocates For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.29 18:05:00 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 29.09.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 16.06.2021 passed by respondent No.1 in Case No.R.W./02/R/A-27/01/2019, whereby the review petition preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed, as also the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by respondent No.1 in Case No. R.N./02/R/A- 27/160/2016, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 07.05.2016 passed by respondent No.2 came to be dismissed. The petitioners have prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 whereby the orders Annexure P-7, P-9 and P-10 have been affirmed by Respondent No.1. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the entire proceedings subsequent to Annexure P-3. 10.4 That the respondents be directed to compensate petitioners and costs of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioners. 10.5 That any other order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour of the petitioners against the respondents.” 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the proceedings under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity, “the Code”) were initiated on an application filed by Respondent No.5 seeking partition of certain holdings bearing Khasra Nos. 29, 1242 and 244/255. However, according to the petitioners, the subsequent proceedings were conducted in respect of different Khasra numbers and the authorities proceeded to pass the order of partition without properly examining the original application, revenue records and the relevant documents. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not impleaded as necessary parties in the proceedings before the concerned Revenue Authority and no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to them. It is contended that despite these substantial procedural irregularities having been specifically pointed out before the appellate and revisional authorities, the same were mechanically overlooked and the orders passed by the subordinate Revenue Authorities were affirmed without proper consideration of the material available on record. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned orders have been passed by the competent Revenue Authorities and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioners essentially relates to the correctness of the Khasra numbers, identification of the property and the effect of the partition proceedings, which are matters involving disputed questions of fact. It is contended that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the partition or 4 claim any right, title or interest in the property in question, they have an efficacious remedy of approaching the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the partition proceedings have culminated in concurrent orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. The specific plea now sought to be raised by the petitioners with regard to the alleged discrepancy in the Khasra numbers does not appear to have been substantiated by any appeal, objection or other material demonstrating that such issue was specifically raised before the concerned Revenue Authorities at the relevant stage. In the absence of any such material on record, this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would not be justified in undertaking an examination of disputed questions relating to identification of the property and correctness of the Khasra numbers. 6. Even otherwise, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the partition effected or claim any independent right, title or interest in the property in question, they have an appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court. Such remedy would also enable the parties to lead evidence and have the disputed questions of fact, including identification of the property and their respective rights therein, adjudicated in accordance with law. There is no impediment in the petitioners availing such remedy in accordance with law. 5 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy available to them before the competent Civil Court, including by filing a suit for partition, if so advised, in accordance with law. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either party. 9. Needless to observe, if such proceedings are instituted, the competent Civil Court shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh