Chattisgarh High Court
Harishankar vs Amrika Bai on 20 June, 2024
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20783
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 3187 of 2022
• Harishankar S/o Shishupal Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Itai,
P.S. Nandghat, Up Tahsil Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District :
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
------Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Amrika Bai W/o Shivratan Verma, aged about 52 years, R/o village Akoli,
Tahsil Bhathapara, District Baloda Bazar, Bhathapara, C.G.
2. Board of Revenue C.G. Bilaspur Circuit Court, Raipur, C.G.
3. Commissioner Durg Division, District Durg, C.G.
4. Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G.
5. Sub Divisional Officer (R) Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G.
6. Tahsildar, Up-Tahsil Nandghat, District Bemetara, C.G.
-------Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
20/06/2024
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the
Board of Revenue dated 19.05.2022 in Revenue Revision No.
RN/23/R/A-27/26/2019, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 has filed
civil suit before the 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Bemetara, District Durg, C.G.
which came to be decreed in her favour and declare the petitioner to be
owner to the extent of 1/3rd part of the property mentioned in Schedule A
& B. After passing of the decree in her favour, Respondent No. 1
submitted an application for partition in accordance with the judgment
and decree passed by the civil court directly before the Tahsildar. He
contended that even if Respondent No. 1 was declared to be owner of
the 1/3rd share of the property, subject matter of the civil suit (Sch. A &
B), proper procedure is to be followed for execution of judgment and
decree and thereafter the executing court ought to have referred the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20783
decree to the Collector for partition effectively under Section 54 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. As the said procedure has not been adopted
and executing proceeding has not been filed, the Tahsildar was not
having the jurisdiction to directly entertain the application seeking
partition in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by the trial
court.
3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 vehemently opposes the
submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that the
submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on the provisions of
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is not correct. Identical issue
came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Rajkumar Satnami vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Writ Appeal No.
443/2018; dt. 07.12.2018] and the Division Bench has held the Tahsildar
to be the authority competent revenue officer for effecting the partition
and dismissed the appeal. As the ground raised by the petitioner in this
case is also one and the same, as decided by the Division Bench,
therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition, therefore, the writ petition
be dismissed.
4. Learned State counsel adopts the submission of learned counsel for
Respondent No. 1.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Petitioner has not filed the application filed by Respondent No. 1 before
the Tahsildar, however, from perusal of the contents of the order
Annexure P-3 dated 07.11.2017 passed by Collector would show that
Respondent No. 1 after getting the judgment and decree in her favour
has directly submitted an application seeking partition of the property,
subject matter of the civil suit, in accordance with the decree passed in
her favour and accordingly the proceedings were initiated. The ground
which was raised by the petitioner before the appellate and revisional
authority was decided against him. The sole ground raised by the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:20783
petitioner in this writ petition is that the decree holder in a civil suit of a
decree declaring 1/3rd share in the ancestral property could not have
filed an application seeking partition directly before the Tahsildar. The
aforementioned ground pointed out was considered by the Division
Bench of this Court in an appeal and the Division Bench has observed
thus.
"23. In the case at hand, the decree holder
moved an application before the Tahsildar who
registered the application as revenue case and
thereafter proceeded to partition the holdings as
per the decree passed by learned civil court which
do not appear to be erroneous proceedings
initiated before the revenue authorities who is
competent to partition the agriculture holdings
under the provisions of Code, 1959. it is not the
case of appellant that the Tahsildar who initiated
proceeding of partition was not having jurisdiction,
or compliance of decree passed by civil court is to
be made by some other authorities. Even as per
language of Section 54 of CPC, it provides that the
partition is to be effected by the revenue
authorities ie., Collector or any gazetted
subordinate of the Collector deputed by him. The
appellant herein has not questioned the
jurisdiction of the Tahsildar of effecting partition of
thle lands assessed to land revenue. The
provisions of Order XX Rule 18 CPC provides for
forwarding the records only and ultimately partition
is to be effected by the revenue officer and under
the Code, 1959, the Tahsildar is authorized and
competent revenue officer for effecting the
partition."
7. Considering the nature of grounds raised, submission of learned counsel
for the respective parties as also the decision of Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Rajkumar Satnami (supra), I do not find any good
ground to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
/pawan
