GOVIND BAGHEL vs GOPAL BAGHEL

Digitally signed by
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.11.03
19:03:31 +0530
1

CGHC010412322026 2026:CGHC:46089
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 1372 of 2026
1 - Govind Baghel S/o Shri Mannu Baghel, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village
Bhoinabhatha, Post-Bawamohatara, Tahsil and District Bemetara (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Gopal Baghel S/o Shri Mannu Baghel, R/o Village -Bhoinabhata, Post-
Bawamohatara Tahsil and District- Bemetara (C.G.)
2 - Mannu Baghel S/o Shri Motilal Baghel, R/o Village Bhoinabhatha, Post-
Bawamohatara, Tahsil and District - Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Order on Board
30-10-2026
1. The present is writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18-06-2026 passed by the
Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur Circuit Court, Raipur in Revenue
Case No.R.N./23/R/A-27/255/2023 whereby the revision filed by the
respondents has been allowed and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Bemetara dated 31-01-2022 and the order dated 13-07-
2023 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division have been set aside and
the order dated 20-09-2021 passed by the Nayab Tahsildar, Bemetara has
been affirmed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 is

2
father of the petitioner and respondent No.1 is his brother. Respondent No.2
was having 1.570 hectare of land of different khasra numbers situated at
Village Bhoinabhatha, Tahsil and District Bemetara. With intention to partition
his property, his father has filed an application under Section 178-A of the
C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Nayab Tahsildar Bemetara for
partition of the property between his two sons, i.e., the petitioner and
respondent No.1. The Nayab Tahsildar though called the Fard Batwara report
from the concerned Patwari, but the concerned Patwari has not divided the
land in accordance with the partition rules and valuable property was kept in
the share of respondent No.1 and the property which was kept in the share of
the petitioner was not having same potential of agriculture or less valuable
land with that of the other part of the land. Without considering the objection
raised by the petitioner the Nayab Tahsildar has passed its order granting
valuable property in favour of respondent No.1. The said order passed by the
Nayab Tahsildar was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue) Bemetara which was allowed vide order dated 31-01-2022
holding that the Nayab Tahsildar has not passed its order after following due
procedure for partition and remitted back the matter to the Nayab Tahsildar
for fresh adjudication. The second appeal filed by the respondents before the
Commissioner, Durg Division has also been dismissed by holding that the
procedure for partition has not been followed by the Nayab Tahsildar and
affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). The
revision field by the respondents before the Board of Revenue was allowed
and the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara
and the Commissioner, Durg Division have been set aside and order passed
by the Nayab Tahsildar has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue. She
would further submit that the well reasoned order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bemetara and the Commissioner, Durg Division
have been set aside by the Board of Revenue on the ground that the subject

3
property was recorded in the name of respondent No.2. He filed an
application for partition before the Nayab Tahsildar and the Nayab Tahsildar
after following due process of law with respect to the partition passed its
order which reflected from the order sheets of the Nayab Tahsildar. She
would also submit that the Board of Revenue has also erroneously
considered that the Fard Batawara was published and objections were
called, whereas, no such proceedings were drawn and the Board of Revenue
on the ground that no objection have been raised by the petitioner during the
proceeding held that the partition was done in accordance with law as the
petitioner has not raised any objection in the partition proceeding despite
participating in the proceeding. She would further submit that by the order
passed by the Nayab Tahsildar and Board of Revenue, the valuable property
was remain with the possession of respondent No.1 and unequal partition
cannot be permitted, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the Nayab
Tahsildar by allowing the petition for fresh adjudication on the partition
proceeding.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
annexed with the petition.
4. The sequence of the orders passed by the revenue authorities are not in
dispute. Ultimately, the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order passed by
the Nayab Tahsildar by which the order of partition was passed. From perusal
of the order passed by the Nayab Tahsildar dated 20-09-2021
(Annexure-P/2), it transpires that the Fard Batwara has been made part of
the order and according to which, the land of Khasra No.471 was divided in
three parts, out of which all the three parties have been allotted share. The
land of Khasra No.151 was divided in two parts which was kept in share of
the petitioner and the respondent No.1. There may be some variations in
quality or quantity of the land which were allotted in the respective share of
the parties, however, in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

4
India this Court cannot examine the factual dispute with respect to quality,
quantity or potential of the subject land which were allotted to the parties
concerned, this Court can only examine the jurisdictional error if any
committed by the sub-ordinate authorities.
5. From perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 18-06-
2026, it transpires that the Board of Revenue has observed in its order that
during the proceeding the petitioner had appeared and participated, however,
he has not raised any objection in the partition proceeding and Fard Batwara
and even in the present writ petition no any document has been filed by the
petitioner that at any point of time he raised any objection before the Nayab
Tahsildar regarding partition proceeding. The conduct of the petitioner
amounts to an admission to partition and the Fard Batwara obtained by the
Nayab Tahsildar, despite obtaining the Fard Batwara by the Nayab Tahsildar
the petitioner has not raised any objection and their father has admitted that
the parties are in their possession of the respective land obtained in partition
and according to which the Nayab Tahsildar has passed its order of partition.
6. On being examined the orders passed by the revenue authorities, this Court
does not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in passing the order passed
by the Board of Revenue. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed . However, the petitioner is at liberty to redress his grievances in
appropriate proceeding, if so advised.
Sd/-
( Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Aadil