1 / 11 2026:CGHC:14364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2324 of 2020 1. Vinod Kumar, S/o Late Gurdasmal, Aged About 57 Years R/o Flat Number 204, Second Floor, Sai Homes Vidya Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Shankar Meghani, S/o Late Gurdasmal Meghani Aged About 55 Years R/o Flat Number 206, Second Floor, Sai Homes Vidya Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Anoop Meghani @ Madhav, S/o Late Gurudasmal Aged About 53 Years R/o Flat Number 205, Second Floor, Sai Homes Vidya Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Manish Meghani, S/o Late Indralal Meghani, Aged About 52 Years R/o 8 Amber Aliso Vijeo C A, Pin - 92656. Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anoop Meghani @ Madhav S/o Late Gurudasmal, R/o Flat Number 205, Second Floor, Sai Homes Vidya Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Rakhi Wadhwani, W/o Shri Manoj Wadhwani, Aged About 51 Years R/o Of 98 Kistofar Road, Building No. 2, Second Floor, Vrindavan Garden, Kolkata, West Bengal Through Power Of Attorney Holder Renu Mandhani R/o A - 7 Rajeev Nagar Lodhipara Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Renu Mandhani, W/o Shri Dilip Mandhani Aged About 50 Years R/o A-7, Rejeev Nagar, Lodhi Para, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Smt. Padma Devi, W/o Suresh Meghani, Aged About 65 Years R/o Sai Homes, Flat Number - 201, 2nd Floor Near Shiv Mandir Vidya Nagar Bilaspur JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.03.30 10:45:03 +0530 2 / 11 8. Amit Meghani S/o Suresh Meghani Aged About 47 Years R/o 2039 Lemon Wood Ct. San Ramon C A 94582, United States Of America (Usa) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anoop Meghani @ Madhav S/o Late Gurudasmal, R/o Flat Number 205, Second Floor, Sai Homes Vidya Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9. Vineet Meghani S/o Suresh Meghani, Aged About 45 Years R/o 907 Monroe Blvd, Henderson Sq. Apartment, King Of Prussia 19406. United States Of America (Usa), Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anoop Meghani @ Madhav S/o Late Gurudasmal, R/o Flat Number 205, Second Floor, Sai Homes Vidya Nagar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10. Narendra Meghani (Died Through Lrs) Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-10-2024 10 (A) Smt. Chitra Meghani W/o Shri Narendra Meghani Aged About 62 Years R/o In Front Of Motilal Petrol Pump, Link Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 10 (B) Smt. Prachi Omkumar Khatri Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Babe Hardasram Sewa Mandal Ambika Nagar, Rukmini Nagar Amravati Maharashtra 10 (C) Saurabh Meghani S/o Shri Narendra Meghani Aged About 37 Years R/o Infront Of Motilal Petrol Pump, Link Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 10 (D) Shilpi Rajkumar Dodani Aged About 37 Years R/o Flat No. C-301 Nancy Tower, Vitthal Rao Shivakar Road, Near Kedar Petrol Pump Wanowarie Pune Maharashtra 11. Sheela Devi, D/o Late Prem Chand Meghani, W/o Shankar Lal Punjabi, Aged About 65 Years R/o Kacchi Kholi, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 12. Seema (Meena), D/o Late Prem Chand Meghani W/o Ravindra Chhabaria, Aged About 58 Years R/o In Front Of Government Girls School, Near Laxmi Oil And Rice Mill, Gurudwara Road, Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 13. Shobha Devi, W/o Kailash Meghani Aged About 60 Years R/o House Number 236 Meher Niwas Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 / 11 14. Jatin Meghani, S/o Kailash Meghani (Wrongly Written As Jatindra Meghani In Order Sheet). Aged About 33 Years R/o House Number 236 Meher Niwas Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 15. Suman Meghani, D/o Kailash Meghani Aged About 28 Years R/o House Number 236 Meher Niwas Indira Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Through Its President, Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Tahsildaar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Rajendra Meghani, S/o Late Moolchand Meghani, R/o E - 8 / 362, In Front Of Bank Of Baroda, Main Road, Tringla, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, Presently Residing At Tata Fabrics Shop No. 6 Main Road Near Bank Of India New Market Bhopal (M.P.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner sought for following reliefs:- 4 / 11 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned order dated 16.07.2020 (ANNEXURE P-1), for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 16.07.2020 (ANNEXURE P- 1) passed by the respondent Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh on the ground that Board of Revenue has no Jurisdiction to entertain a Revision under Section 50 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 against order passed by Tehsildaar which is an Appellabel order under Section 44 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order passed by Board of Revenue as it is without Jurisdiction on the ground that the Respondent No.5 Rajendra Meghani or His Father has no interest in the land which was subject matter of Partition between Legal Heirs of Late Shri Gurudasmal and Premchand, In view of the Partition that took place in 1978 whereby the Joint Hindu Family comprising with Mulchnad was already got extinct. 10.4 Therefore It is Prayed before This Hon'ble Court to set aside the Impugned order passed by Board of Revenue dated 16.07.2020 (ANNEXURE P-1) as Board of Revenue has no Juirsdiction in view of 5 / 11 dismissal of Civil suit filed by Rajendra Meghani and which was not restored. 10.5) The Hon'ble Court may order costs of the Petition to the Petitioner. 10.6) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the lasten interest of justice. 2. (a) The facts of the case, in brief, are that certain lands situated at Village Juna Bilaspur bearing Khasra Nos. 598/3, 598/2, 591/2, 596 and 595/2 having a total area of about 0.63 acres. The said land was originally purchased jointly through a registered sale deed dated 14.01.1966 by four persons, namely Gurudasmal, Premchand Meghani, Mulchand Meghani and Indradev Meghani, and their names were duly recorded in the revenue records as co- owners. Subsequently, an application was submitted before the Tehsildar, Bilaspur for mutation of the land. The case was registered as Revenue Case No. A-27/2002-03. During the course of the said mutation proceedings, the Tehsildar obtained a Fard Batwara (फ्䵖 बⰂटव㔾 र〾 ) from the Patwari and, on the basis of the said report, passed an order dated 22.09.2003 directing partition of the land under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity ‘the Code’). However, while passing the said order, the Tehsildar did not implead Mulchand Meghani, who was one of the original co-purchasers and recorded tenure holders of the land, nor was any notice issued to him or opportunity of 6 / 11 hearing granted. Consequently, the partition was effected only between the heirs of Gurudasmal, the heirs of Indradev and Premchand Meghani, completely excluding the share of Mulchand Meghani, though he was entitled to one-fourth share in the property. (b) Being aggrieved, an application under Section 8 of the Code was filed before the Board of Revenue by the son of Mulchand Meghani (respondent No.5 herein). The Board of Revenue, after examining the record, found that the Tehsildar had initiated mutation proceedings under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code but had illegally proceeded to pass a partition order under Section 178 without registering a separate partition case and without issuing notice to all co-owners. The Board of Revenue further observed that the original co-purchasers were four in number and the land ought to have been divided into four equal shares. (c) Accordingly, by order dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure-P/9), the Board of Revenue set aside the order dated 22.09.2003 passed by the Tehsildar and directed that the names of all the co-owners or their legal heirs be recorded jointly in the revenue records and thereafter the land be partitioned into four equal shares in accordance with law. The said order of the Board of Revenue was challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition bearing No. WP227 No. 5887/2010 (Prem Chand & Others v Board of Revenue & Others). This Court by order dated 10.7.2013 (Annexure-P/10) directed the Board of Revenue to hear all concerned parties and pass a fresh order after affording them an 7 / 11 opportunity of hearing. (d) Pursuant to the order of this Court, upon reconsideration of the matter and after hearing the parties, it was again found by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned dated 16.7.2020 that the Tehsildar had passed the partition order without impleading one of the recorded co-owners and without following the procedure prescribed under the Code. Therefore, the order dated 22.09.2003 was held to be illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order of the Tehsildar was set aside and it was directed that the land in question be recorded jointly in the names of all the co-owners or their legal heirs and thereafter partition be carried out in four equal shares after adjusting the portion of land already sold by one of the co-owners from his respective share. Thus, this petition by the legal heirs of other co-owners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition arises out of mutation (Khata Vibhajan) proceedings conducted by the Tehsildar, Bilaspur in Revenue Case Nos. A-27/2002-03. It is submitted that in the said proceedings, the petitioners had sought mutation in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos. 598/3, 598/2, 591/2, 595/2 and 596 situated at Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur. The Tehsildar, after considering the material placed on record, allowed the application of the petitioners and ordered mutation in their favour on the basis of an affidavit sworn by late Mulchand Meghani, father of respondent No. 5, which was produced during the mutation 8 / 11 proceedings and has been filed along with the petition as Annexure P/7. Learned counsel further submits that despite the aforesaid affidavit, respondent No. 5 (son of Mulchand Meghani), after a lapse of about ten years from the date of the mutation order, challenged the said mutation proceedings before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the mutation was invalid as no notice had been issued to his late father, who was alleged to be one of the co-parceners of the property in question. It is contended that the Board of Revenue failed to appreciate the material fact that issuance of notice to late Mulchand Meghani was not required, inasmuch as he had already sworn an affidavit acknowledging the mutation, which was duly placed before the Tehsildar at the time of the proceedings. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there was no illegality in the mutation proceedings conducted by the Tehsildar in his absence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that no lawful partition proceedings were ever registered before the competent revenue authority and, in absence of registration of any partition case, the order dated 22.09.2003 passed by the Tahsildar is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the alleged affidavit said to have been sworn by late Mulchand, which formed the basis of the mutation proceedings, is false and fabricated and does not bear the genuine signature of late Mulchand, but rather appears to have been prepared by forging his signature. Learned counsel further submits that, in any event, right, title and interest in immovable 9 / 11 property cannot be transferred or recognized merely on the basis of such affidavit or mutation proceedings, and the same can pass only through a valid registered instrument executed upon payment of proper stamp duty in accordance with law. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the mutation order based on such doubtful and unregistered documents cannot confer any legal right upon the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier by order dated 15.12.2025 this Court after hearing the parties passed the following order :- “In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the State is directed to place on record the proceedings of Revenue Case Nos. 49/2002-2003 and A- 27/2002-2003 and also file an affidavit clarifying as to whether the affidavit sworn by late Mulchand Meghani, annexed as Annexure P/7, was placed before the Tehsildar, Bilaspur during the said mutation proceedings or not.” 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this court, the State has filed its affidavit wherein at para 4 it has been stated that “the affidavit duly sworn by Late Mulchand Meghani, which has been filed as Annexure P/7 in the instant petition has been submitted along with the application under Section 109 & 110 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code for mutation. This fact is 10 / 11 established from the communication of the Tahsildar, Bilaspur.” 8. From the affidavit filed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, it appears that along with the said affidavit, a communication dated 13.2.2026 of the Tahsildar, Bilaspur and the relevant revenue proceedings have been filed, which contains the affidavit filed by the father of the respondent No.5 namely Mulcahnd Megahni and also the application filed under Section 109, 110 of the Code before the Tahsildar, Bilaspur. In the affidavit dated 2.12.2002, Mulchand Meghani stated that he has no objection in recording the names of legal heirs of other co- parceners and he has sweared the affidavit with his own consent. The said affidavit has duly been considered by the Tahsildar and passed the order of mutation in respect of the suit land. However, the Board of Revenue in the order impugned observed that the order of mutation has been passed by the Tahsildar without affording due opportunity of hearing to the father of respondent No.5. While passing the order impugned the Board of Revenue has not at all appreciated the true facts as also the affidavit filed by Mulchand before the Tahsildar. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts situation of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, this Court finds that respondent No. 5 has specifically raised a dispute regarding the authenticity of the affidavit alleged to have been sworn by late Mulchand, which formed the basis of the mutation proceedings. The question relating to the genuineness of the said affidavit involves factual examination and verification, which cannot 11 / 11 appropriately be undertaken by this Court in the present writ jurisdiction. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the Board of Revenue with a direction to examine the authenticity of the affidavit purportedly filed by late Mulchand Meghani, father of respondent No.5 and thereafter decide the case afresh in accordance with law on its own merits that too after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. The Board of Revenue shall undertake the said exercise and pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed off. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti