GOVIND BAGHEL vs GOPAL BAGHEL

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

CGHC010412332026 2026:CGHC:46091
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 1380 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.)
... Respondent
(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-27/256/2023 whereby the revision filed by the
respondent 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 the respondent is his
brother. Total 1.850 hectare of land of different khasra numbers situated at
Village Bhoinabhatha, Tahsil and District Bemetara was recorded jointly in the

2
name of the parties. With intention to partition of the subject property, the
respondent 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 the parties, i.e., the petitioner and the respondent. 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 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 the respondent. 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 respondent 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 respondent before the Board of Revenue was allowed
and the order 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 orders passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Bemetara and the Commissioner, Durg Division have
been set aside by the Board of Revenue holding that 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

3
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 orders
passed by the Nayab Tahsildar and Board of Revenue, the valuable property
was remain with the possession of respondent 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 was divided in two parts, in which
Khasra No.18/2 admeasuring 0.58 hectare, 18/3 admeasuring 0.23 hectare
and 0.11 hectare of Khasra No.34, total area 0.92 hectare was allotted in the
share of the respondent, and Khasra No.30 admeasuring 0.41 hectare, 0.10
hectare of Khasra No.34 and Khasra No.35 admeasuring 0.42 hectare, total
area 0.93 hectare has been allotted in the share of the petitioner. 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 India this Court cannot examine the factual dispute
with respect to quality, quantity or potential of the subject land which were

4
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 the parties have admitted that
they are in possession of their 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