Chattisgarh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs Chandra Kishore Tiwari on 20 May, 2025
1/7
Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
YOGESH
TIWARI
TIWARI
Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.05.20
16:11:54
+0530
WA No. 333 of 2025
PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA versus CHANDRA KISHORE TIWARI
Order Sheet
20.05.2025 Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Mr. M.L. Sakat, learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 to 6 and Mr. Jitendra
Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the State.
Since Mr. M.L. Sakat and Mr. Jitendra Pandey,
learned Government Advocate have put their
appearance on behalf of the respective respondents
No.1 to 10, there is no need to fresh notice to them.
The present intra Court appeal has been filed
against the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C)
No.3018/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the
respondents No.1 to 6 herein has been disposed of.
Issue notice to respondent No.11 by ordinary as
well as registered post. Process fee be paid as per
Rules.
Heard on I.A. No.1, an application for grant of
stay.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
deceased Rewaram (father of respondents No.1 to 6)
has filed a case for partition of holdings under Section
178 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for
short, "the Code, 1959") for village Sonpairi, Tahsil
Arang, District Raipur (C.G), contending that there was
oral partition between him and his brother Mukutmani
Sharma before the Panch on 22.04.1988. He further
submits that the land described in para 3 of the
application was fallen in his share, therefore said land
be given to him. In reply to which, the said land in
question were not given to Rewaram. During pendency
of the case Rewaram died and his legal
representatives were brought on record, who are
respondents No.1 to 6. it has been contended that on
17.01.1994, an order for making Fard Batwara was
passed by Naib Tahsildar Raipur, against which
appellants have preferred a revision before Additional
Collector, Raipur and vide order dated 28.10.1995, the
Court has observed that since the alleged order has
been passed in contravention of Rule 4 and 5 framed
under Section 178 of the Code, 1959, therefore he
remitted back the matter to Naib Tahsildar Raipur for
re-deciding the matter in accordance with law. It has
been further contended that during pending of the
proceedings, a Civil Suit bearing No.443-A/2002 was
instituted by deceased Rewaram against the
appellants before 4th Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur,
claiming declaration of title and injunction in respect of
land in question of village Sonpairi, in which mutual
partition dated 22.04.1988 was admitted and partition
was claimed. During pendency of suit, before
Additional Tahsildar Raipur upon remand order dated
11.09.2001 was passed, therefore it was held that
when suit for declaration and injunction is pending with
competent Civil Court, hence no order could have
been passed. The parties were directed to get decided
their title and interest through Civil Suit.
It has been argued that an appeal was preferred
by Rewaram, as Revenue Appeal No. 207/A-27/ year
2003-2004 before Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)
Raipur, which was allowed on 04.03.2005 and it was
directed that the partition be done in accordance with
earlier partition, as well as upon Fard Batwara
submitted by Patwari, which was affirmed by Additional
Collector vide order dated 19.08.2008. Thereafter, an
appeal preferred by the appellants, as Revenue
Appeal No.83/A-27/ year 2006-2007 and the Civil Suit
No.443-A of 2002 filed by Rewaram was decided on
31.03.2005 and it was held that Rewaram was not the
owner of said suit land. Thereafter, an appeal was
preferred against the said judgment and decree dated
31.03.2005 before District Judge Raipur, which was
registered as Civil Appeal No.11-A/2005, which was
also dismissed on 06.10.2005, against which, a
Second Appeal was preferred, which was registered as
Second Appeal No. 135 of 2005, which was withdrawn
on 13.02.2019. The partition sought for regarding
village Sonpairi alone is not maintainable because it is
not in dispute that land situated in Ambikapur in village
Sarganwa, Ambikapur has not been added in
application under Section 178 of Code, 1959.
It has been further argued that the judgment
cited in application dated 21.10.2024 being Chetna
Dholakhandi and others v. State of M.P. reported in
2022 (1) M.P.L.J. Page 596 has neither been
considered nor been discussed in impugned order,
therefore it is liable to be set aside and in such
circumstances, parties would have been directed to file
Civil Suit for partition because partial partition is not
available to the parties.
The fact remains that both the parties have filed
separate suits claiming exclusive right over the
properties of both villages have been dismissed,
therefore, only the Civil Court could have partitioned
the joint property in view of the fact that properties of
Village Sargawa and Village Sonpairi are ancestral
properties and in absence of provisions like M.P.
Ceiling Act, 1960, there is no provision in the Code,
1959 for deciding the cases of two different villages
comprising of two different Commissioners, therefore
order of Board of Revenue challenged in writ appeal,
ought to have not been disturbed and Fard Batwara
signed by one person of family of appellant i.e. Krishna
Kumar cannot be treated as acceptance of all the
parties, as was done by the learned Single Judge,
therefore, reversal of order of Board of Revenue as
well as confirming Fard Batwara, which is against
earlier partition, is wrong and illegal and liable to be
quashed/set-aside.
Taking into account the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to
maintain 'Status quo' as exists today till the next date
of hearing.
Four weeks time is granted to the learned
counsel for the respondents to file reply-affidavit, and
thereafter, two weeks time is granted to the learned
counsel for the appellants to file rejoinder-affidavit, if
any.
List the case in the month of July, 2025.
In view of the above, I.A. No.02, application for
hearing during summer vacation as well as I.A. No.03,
application for urgent hearing, stand disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Judge
Yogesh
