1 / 9 2026:CGHC:18380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2275 of 2018 Reserved on: 07/04/2026 Delivered on: 21/04/2026 Uploaded on: 22/04/2026 1. Satpal Singh S/o Narendra Bhadraja Aged About 41 Years R/o Punjabi Colony, Besides Shanti Niketan College, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Pushpa Bhadraja W/o Satpal Singh Bhadraja Aged About 38 Years R/o Punjabi Colony, Besides Shanti Niketan College, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Board Of Revenue Through The President, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Commissioner Bilaspur Bilaspur, Division, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgrh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Tahsildar Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Rajni Guddi W/o Chandrashekhar Buddhi Raja R/o Punjabi Colony Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Chandra S/o Late Kismat Lal Bhadraja R/o Punjabi Colony Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8. Narendra Kumar Bhadraja S/o Late Kismat Lal Bhadraja R/o Punjabi Colony Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9. Vimla Rani Bhadraza W/o Narendra Bhadraza R/o Punjabi Colony Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 / 9 --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents- State For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate & Smt. Rajani Guddi (complainant) Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge C.A.V. Order 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No. RN/02/R/B-121/25/2018, wherein the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision filed by petitioners herein affirming the orders dated 25.05.2017 passed by Respondent No. 5/ Tahsildar, order dated 24.07.2017 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (R.) and order dated 14.03.2018 passed by Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this petition are that on the application submitted by private respondent No. 6, Tahsildar/ Respondent No. 5 has drawn proceeding registering a revenue case and has decided the same vide order dated 25.05.2017 in favour of applicant therein, ie., respondent No. 6 and ordered that, non- applicants No. 1 & 2 therein/ petitioners be evicted from the room constructed over part of land bearing Kh. No. 197/14 measuring 0.021 hect. and to hand over the vacant possession of the aforesaid room to applicant therein ie., respondent No. 6 herein. Petitioners thereafter have challenged the order of Tahsildar in an appeal before the SDO(R.) under Section 44(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity “Code of 1959”), which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2017. Petitioners thereafter preferred a second appeal under Section 44(2) of the Code of 1959 before Respondent No. 3/ 3 / 9 Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which too came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2018. Petitioners thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.07.2018. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the revenue authorities erred in registering the revenue case on the application submitted by private respondents No. 6 to 9 overlooking the specific pleadings made in the application that the room from which petitioners are directed to be evicted was given on rent to them. When once the room on which petitioners were residing was given to them on rent they were occupying the same as tenants and were in permissive possession. Even if tenancy has been determined then also petitioners could have been directed to evict by the competent forum/ authorities in accordance with law. In the facts of the case, the appropriate authority would be the Rent Controlling Authority to pass order of eviction and not the Tahsildar. It is also contention of learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners have claimed right over the property pleading them to be ancestral property and petitioners being the family members of Respondent No. 6, and title dispute is raised, appropriate forum to resolve the dispute would be competent civil court and not the Tahsildar. He lastly contended that in the facts of the case, wherein, the application it is pleading that the petitioners were occupying one room constructed over the land bearing Kh. No. 197/14 then for eviction from the residential accommodation Tahsildar is having no jurisdiction to register the case and pass any order of eviction. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in the case of Krishnakumar Das and another vs. Balram 4 / 9 Das and others reported in 1971 MPLJ 864 and decision passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(227) No. 4757 of 2008 (between Asgar Ali vs. Amna Bi) decided on 18.01.2011. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners would further submit that the Board of Revenue while considering the arguments raised by petitioners in their revision has posed wrong questions and dismissed the revision observing that when Bhumiswami herself/ himself has lodged the complaint that applicants/ revisionists have illegally possessed the land and are causing harassment to bhumiswami which is sufficient to initiate proceeding under Section 250 of the Code of 1959. Board of Revenue has not taken into consideration in its operative paragraph of the order that the petitioners are not in possession of the open land but in possession of one room constructed on the land bearing Kh. No. 197/14. For dismissing the revision, Board of Revenue has also observed that entire proceedings of the subordinate revenue authorities, ie., Tahsildar, SDO(R.) and the Commissioner, is in accordance with the provisions of Section 250 of the Code of 1959. In the case at hand, the provisions under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 would not be attracted. 5. Learned counsel for respondents would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the private respondents No. 6 to 9 that petitioners are in possession of one room constructed on the part of land bearing Kh. No. 197/14 and when they did not vacate the room which was handed over to petitioners by private respondents, applications were submitted before different authorities. The revenue authorities have taken into 5 / 9 consideration that the petitioners were in forceful illegal possession of the property. It is also stated that application filed before Respondent No. 5/ Tahsildar was not under the provisions under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 nor Respondent No. 4/ SDO(R.) has considered the appeal submitted by petitioners herein that the order of Tahsildar is passed under Section 250 and therefore the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that the proceedings drawn by the Tahsildar and passing of the order of eviction to be illegal is not sustainable. It is also argument raised that private respondents have not given a room in possession of petitioners on rent but on humanitarian consideration on the request of petitioners it was given and when they were asked to vacate the same, they refused. It is also submitted that complaint was made to the police on 07.02.2026 pleading therein that petitioners have committed theft of household articles from the said house. It is submission that the respondents No. 8 & 9 are the senior citizens and special act has been incorporated in the name and style “The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007”. Under the aforesaid act, rights of the senior citizens have been protected and therefore Tahsildar has passed order protecting the interest of senior citizens by ordering non-applicants before the Tahsildar to vacate the room given to them and to hand over the vacant possession to respondent No. 6, daughter of senior citizens. The orders passed by the revenue officials are executive in nature. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 6 / 9 7. Petitioners have submitted copy of application based upon which Respondent No. 5/ Tahsildar registered revenue case and after hearing the parties has passed the order dated 23.05.2017. In para 2 of the application, there is specific pleading that on the request made by petitioners one room was given to them on rent for Rs. 500 and possession of the same was also handed over to them. This application is signed by respondents No. 6 to 9. Copy of application is filed as Annexure P-2 under the signature of Respondents No. 6 to 9 is not denied by the counsel for Respondents No. 6 to 9 and Respondent No. 6 who appeared before this Court in-person. They have made submission that application was not submitted before the Tahsildar but it was given to the Collector, police and the SDO(R.). 8. Be that as it may, Respondents No. 6 to 9 want to enjoy fruit of the order passed by Tahsildar which was affirmed by the SDO(R.), Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and the Board of Revenue. The order of Tahsildar is an order of eviction of petitioners who are non-applicants therein, from one room and to hand over the vacant possession of the room to applicant therein/ Respondent No. 6, which is clearly mentioned in the last para of the order passed by the Tahsildar. The Board of Revenue, final revenue authority, against which the writ petition is filed, has observed that even if the Tahsildar has not mentioned specific provision under which the revenue case is registered, proceeding is drawn and order is passed but from the facts of the case, pleadings made, it is apparent that application was filed under Section 250 of the Code of 1959, which is in accordance with law. Before the Board of Revenue, Respondents No. 6 to 9 have taken a plea that the order of Tahsildar is under Section 250 of the Code of 7 / 9 1959 but it is an administrative order. Even if the said submissions are to be accepted as raised by the counsel for petitioners and the Respondents No. 6 to 9 then also in view of the pleadings made in the application submitted by Respondents No. 6 to 9, also the order or eviction from the residential accommodation, even if it is for one single room, could not have been entertained by the Tahsildar but for the competent authority under the law. The property in dispute is a pucca one room of a house situated within the Bilaspur city then the appropriate authority to pass order of eviction would only be the Rent Controlling Authority. Tahsildar is having no jurisdiction to pass such an order of eviction of a person from the room/ residential accommodation. 9. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Krishnakumar Das (supra) has occasioned to consider the issue where the application under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 can be entertained by the Tahsildar and ordering it for restoring the possession of residential accommodation and held that house cannot come within the fictional definition of ‘land’ as defined under the Code of 1959 and observed thus: “4. Now, the purpose of the Code is to provide a speedy and summary remedy to a Bhumiswami dispossessed of his land. No doubt, the land is fictionally meant to include even buildings on land; but it is clearly not the intent of the Code to provide a speedy and summary remedy under the Code to a Bhumiswami dispossessed of his immovable property. The use of the word ‘Bhumiswami’ in connection with the land of which he dispossessed and of which he may claim restoration of possession in 8 / 9 section 250 of the Code clearly shows that the speedy and summary remedy provided by the Code is to be restored when a person, who is Bhumiswami, is dispossessed of land which he holds in Bhumiswami rights and when the restoration of possession of such land is the dominant purpose. But, when the land is an appurtenance to the building and the dominant purpose of the plaintiff is to get restoration of possession of his building of which he alleges forcible dispossession, section 6 of the Specific Relief Act would be his appropriate remedy which provides that ‘if any person is dispossessed, without his consent, of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, be set up in such suit’. I am also add that buildings standing on land are fictionally made to mean land in the Code (see section 2 (k) of the Code), provided there is nothing in the subject or the context, and that consequently, when the dominant purpose of a person who also happens to be a Bhumiswami is to recover possession of his house of which he has been illegally dispossessed, his house cannot come within the fictional definition of the word ‘land’ as defined in the Code to give jurisdiction to a Tahsildar to restore him to its possession under section 250 of the Code.” 10. In the case at hand also, from the pleadings made in the application and not disputed by the petitioners that the petitioners were permitted to live in one room and it is the room was to be vacated by evicting petitioners, when, the ratio of judgment in the case of Krishnakumar Das (supra) is applied to the facts of the case, I am of the view that the respondents-revenue authorities have committed error in passing an order of eviction of petitioners from the room constructed on the road 9 / 9 which was given to petitioners by the private respondents, admittedly, Section 250 of the Code of 1959, in the facts of the case, has no application. The private respondents could have filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority or could have filed before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. 11. Board of Revenue also erred in dismissing the revision holding that the proceedings drawn and the order passed by Tahsildar, affirmed by the SDO(R.) and the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division to be one of the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code of 1959 without appreciating the pleading of the application. 12. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, discretion made above, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur is not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly it is hereby set aside. 13. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the subordinate revenue authorities ie., the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, SDO(R.) and the Tahsildar are also set aside. In the facts of the case, it is also ordered that revenue authorities could not have registered the case, drawn proceedings and pass the order of eviction from residential accommodation. 14. In the facts of the case, private respondents will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings for redressal of their grievance, in accordance with law, if they so desire. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2026.04.22 17:52:09 +0530