TULSIRAM vs THE BOARD OF REVENUE CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed by
MOHAMMED
AADIL KHAN
Date: 2026.10.27
18:36:21 +0530
1

CGHC010255972020 2026:CGHC:45381
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved for orders on :28-07-2026
Order passed on : 27-10-2026
WP227 No. 781 of 2026
1 - Tulsiram S/o Late Chhedilal Sahu Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Madai,
Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Parasram S/o Late Chhedilal Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Madai,
Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Dhanaram (Died) amended as per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 01-02-2024.
3.1 - Lata Bai Sahu W/o Lt. Ghanaram Sahu, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village
Madai, P.S. Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G.
3.2 - Kumar Gaurav Sahu S/o Lt. Ghanaram Sahu, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village Datan, P.S. Palari, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.
3.3 - Khileshwar Chandra Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Ghanaram Sahu, Aged About 33
Years, R/o D.L.S. College Near Ekta Colony, Ashok Nagar, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur,
Distt. Bilaspur, C.G.
3.4 - Ohi Krishna Sahu S/o Lt. Ghanaram Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
Madai, P.S. Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G.
4 - Arvind Kumar Sahu S/o Kaleshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village- Madhuwa, Tahsil- Akaltara, Distrit- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
5 - Smt. Uma Sahu Daughter of Kaleshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village- Loharsi, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

2
6 - Smt. Rama Sahu Daughter of Kaleshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Premnagar, Near Murra Bhatthi, Gudhiyari, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Smt. Satrupa Bai W/o Khamhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village-
Amali, Tahsil-Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
8 - Rangnath Sahu S/o Late Gangaram Sahu, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Village-
Madai, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
9 - Ramdulari (Died Through Lrs) amended as per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 15-
05-2026
9.1 - Smt. Saroj Sahu D/o Ramdulare Sahu, Aged About 56 Years, W/o Shri
Nilkanth Sahu, R/o Village- Chhurikali, Thana and Tahsil- Kathghora, District- Korba
(C.G.)
9.2 - Ramkhilawan Sahu S/o Ramdulare Sahu, Aged About 54 Years, At Present
R/o Hardi Bazar, Thana and Tahsil- Hardi Bazar, District- Korba (C.G.)
9.3 - Smt. Devaki Sahu D/o Ramdulare Sahu, Aged About 51 Years, W/o Ashok
Kumar Sahu, R/o Village- Mauhakapa, Thana and Tahsil- Takhatpur (Belpan),
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
9.4 - Smt. Kausilaya Sahu D/o Ramdulare Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, W/o Tekram
Sahu, R/o Village- Hardi, Thana and Tahsil- Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.)
9.5 - Smt. Shashi Sahu D/o Ramdulare Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, W/o
Shivnandan Sahu, R/o Village- Bantarpur, Thana and Tahsil- Champa, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
9.6 - Kamlesh Sahu S/o Ramdulare, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Seepat, N.T.P.C,
Thana and Tahsil- Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
10 - Ganeshram S/o Late Gangaram Sahu, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village
Madai, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,

3
Chhattisgarh
11 - Gopal Prasad Sahu S/o Late Gangaram Sahu, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Village Madai, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
12 - Jaypal Prasad Sahu S/o Late Gangaram Sahu, Aged About 57 Years, R/o
Village Madai, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners
versus
1 - The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Additional Tahsildar, Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Rajkumar S/o Late Kartikram Sahu, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Madai,
Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Krishna Kumar S/o Late Kartikram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village
Madai, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Dropadi Bai W/o Late Mathura, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village- Lakhram,
Tahsil- Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
8 - Savitri Bai W/o Dhanaram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village-Sis, Tahsil-
Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
9 - Gayatri Bai W/o Shankarlal Sahu, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Katghora, Tahsil-
Katghora, District-Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

4
10 - Meena Sahu W/o Nandlal Sahu, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mohalla Kanshi
Nagar, Korba, Tahsil and District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondents No.5 to 10 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
C A V Order
1. Initially the impugned order dated 24-08-2020 passed by the learned Board
of Revenue was challenged by the petitioners by filing petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, i.e., WPC No.2827/2020 and subsequently,
by order dated 22-06-2026 the coordinate Bench of this Court permitted the
petitioners to convert the WPC No.2827/2020 into a petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India and then the said writ petition has been converted
as WP227 No.781/2026.
2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by
the petitioners against the impugned order dated 24-08-2020 passed by the
C.G. Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case No.R.N./02/R/A-27/51/2020
whereby the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
3. The petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) in the present writ petition:-
“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the
impugned order dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure P/1).
10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the
facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost
of the petition may be given.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had
rd
prosecuted a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.407-A/1998 before the learned 3

5
Civil Judge Class I, Bilaspur for declaration of title and permanent injunction
over the suit property of Schedule B and C annexed with the plaint. The said
civil suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree
dated 07-11-2002. The petitioners had filed first appeal before the learned
th
10 Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.31-A/2004
which was decided on 08-09-2004 by allowing the first appeal filed by the
petitioners and decree has been passed in their favour declaring the plaintiffs
No.1 and 2 were title holder of the suit land shown in the Schedule B and C
annexed with the plaint and the defendants No.1 is title holder of the suit
property of Schedule D annexed with the plaint. The defendant No.1 has also
restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
property. The judgment and decree dated 08-09-2004 passed by the learned
first appellate Court was challenged by the defendants before this Court in
Second Appeal No.495/2004 which was decided on 17-09-2013 and the
second appeal filed by the defendants have been allowed and the judgment
and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court was set aside and
then the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed. The Special
Leave to file appeal filed by the petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has also been dismissed. He would further submit that it was claim of the
plaintiffs in the suit that they were title and possession holder of the entire
property of Schedule B and C annexed with the plaint. After the judgment
passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.495/2004, the defendants had
filed an application before the Nayab Tahsildar Seepat, District Bilaspur on
26-09-2013 for partition of the suit property between the parties and they
rd
claimed their 1/3 share over the suit properties.
5. Initially, the Tahsildar has passed the order dated 27-01-2014 directing for
partition of the suit property without following the due procedure of partition.
The said order dated 27-01-2014 was challenged before the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue) Masturi which was decided on 24-07-2014 and the appeal

6
filed by the petitioners were allowed and the matter was remitted back to the
Tahsildar for deciding the case afresh after following due procedure of law for
partition of the suit property, according to the fard batwara from the
concerned patwari and calling objection on it. The said order passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi was further challenged in revision
before the Addl. Collector Bilaspur which was dismissed on 23-06-2015 and
subsequent revision filed before the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur
Division was also dismissed vide order dated 02-02-2016 and then the Addl.
Tahsildar proceeded in the case for partition.
6. The Addl. Tahsildar Seepat vide its order dated 28-09-2018 passed the order
and partitioned the suit properties in three shares after obtaining fard batwara
report from the concerned Patwari. The challenge to the order dated 28-09-
2018 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi has been
dismissed vide order dated 23-09-2019. The challenge to the order dated 28-
09-2018 passed by the Additional Tahsildar was on the ground that the Addl.
Tahsildar without giving proper opportunity of hearing accepted the fard
batwara submitted by the concerned patwari, passed the order and neither
any objections were called nor the parties were provided opportunity to lead
evidence with respect to the correctness of said fard batwara. The suit
properties consist with houses and residential plots including the agricultural
land and with respect to the houses and residential plots the Tahsildar has no
jurisdiction under Section 178 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for its
partition. The concerned patwari has prepared the fard batwara without
visiting on the spot and prepared the fard batwara on his own which was not
in accordance with law, yet the said fard batwara was accepted by the Addl.
Tahsildar. The further challenge to the order passed by the Addl. Tahsildar
Seepat and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi before the Addl.
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division was also dismissed vide order dated 19-02-
2020 and subsequently the Board of Revenue has also dismissed the

7
revision filed by the petitioners. He would refer the reply filed before the Addl.
Tahsildar Seepat dated 23-02-2018 annexed at page No.57 of the document
R/5/1 filed on 01-03-2021 by the respondents No.5 to 10 and also referred to
the order sheet dated 05-09-2018 which has been annexed at page No.62 of
the document R/5/1. He would also submit that by the impugned order dated
28-09-2018 the Addl. Tahsildar has passed unequal partition of the property
as the valuable properties were given in share of respondents and the
property of less value or non-agricultural were kept in share of the petitioners.
Further, the Tahsildar has no right to partition the house which were also the
subject property. The Sub-Divisional Officer had clearly directed in its order
that the fard batwara should be prepared in presence of the parties,
opportunity to raise objection should be provided and proper opportunity of
hearing to the parties should be provided before considering the fard batwara
submitted by the patwari and after calling objection on the fard batwara the
partition order should be passed, but the same has not been complied with
by the concerned Tahsildar and without considering the objection of the
petitioners the order has been passed.
7. He would also submit that the Board of Revenue has mechanically passed
the order dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners saying that the civil
suit filed by the petitioners has been dismissed whereas the claim of the
petitioners that they are the sole owners of the entire property which has
been denied and it is not the decree that the plaintiffs have no right or title
over the suit property. It is the defendants themselves who filed the
rd
application for partition for 1/3 of the suit property. The same was
consideration of the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner
Bilaspur. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities
may be quashed/set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the
Tahsildar for fresh adjudication in the partition application filed by the
respondents in accordance with law and after providing proper opportunity of

8
hearing to the parties concerned.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 10
opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and has
submitted that on the application filed by the respondents initially the Addl.
Tahsildar has passed the partition order dated 27-01-2014 which was
challenged by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)
Masturi and the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to
the Tahsildar directing him to decide the case afresh after providing proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties, calling of the fard batwara from the
patwari and after calling objections over it. Thereafter, the Tahsildar after
following the due procedure and under direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue) Masturi called the fard batwara from the patwari and after calling
the objections decided the application vide order date 28-09-2018. The Addl.
Tahsildar Seepat in its order dated 28-09-2018 has observed that after
obtaining the fard batwara from the patwari, proclamation (istahar) was
published in the village and when no objection was received, the order was
passed by the Tahsildar. The said order passed by the Tahsildar has been
affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, Additional
Commissioner, Bilaspur as also the Board of Revenue. The petitioners had
appeared in the proceeding before the Addl. Tahsildar Seepat and they
cannot say that they have not been heard before passing the order. The Addl.
Tahsildar after considering the fard batwara submitted by the patwari which
was prepared on the basis of quality, quantity and convenience of the parties,
has passed the order of partition which was in accordance with law and
almost equal property was given in each of the share holders. The principles
of partition have been followed in the order passed by the Tahsildar which
has been affirmed by the superior revenue authorities. The respondents are
in settled possession of their land after partition and their names have
already been mutated and after such a long time the order of partition and

9
mutation cannot be disturbed. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
annexed with the petition.
10. The controversy in the present petition revolves around the partition of the
property between the parties. As per the petitioners the partition is unequal,
whereas, the respondents have said that the partition order is not in
accordance with law. It is the allegation leveled by the petitioners that the
revenue authorities have submitted fard batwara without visiting spot and
prepared the fard batwara on the instance of the respondents by which the
valuable property was put in the share of the respondents and the property of
less value or less potential have been put in the share of the petitioners. To
demonstrate the allegation leveled by the petitioners, he would refer the
order sheet of Nayab Tahsildar/Addl. Tahsildar Seepat. The order sheet of the
Addl. Tahsildar Seepat dated 21-07-2017 Annexure RJ-2 filed by the
petitioners on 22-02-2023 along with the rejoinder demonstrates that due to
the dispute between the parties at the time of preparation of the fard batwara
the same could not be prepared which was reported by the concerned
patwari to the Tahsildar. He has also filed the report dated 23-06-2017
prepared by the patwari at the time of preparation of fard batwara which is
necessary to be reproduced here:-
“ mi;qZDr fo"k;kUrxZr vkosndx.k jktdqekj fi- dkfrZdjke oXkS- fo#n~/k rqylhjke firk
Nsnhyky oxS- ds izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa xzke & eM+bZ i-g-u & 08 esa mHk; i{kdkj ds 'kkfey
[kkrs esa ntZ esa Hkwfe dk QnZ cVokjk lwph rS;kj djus gsrq mDr lanfHkZr vkns’k ds ifjikyu esa
esjs }kjk fnukad 18@06@2017 o 20@06@2017 dks mDr dk;Z gsrq frfFk fu;r dj ekSds ij
mifLFkr gq, ijUrq dze’k% vukosndx.k dh vuqifLFkfr rFkk ekSds ij fnukad 20@06@2017 dks
vkosndx.k rFkk vukosndx.k ds e/; fookn gksus ds dkj.k QnZ cVokjk lwph rS;kj ugha fd;k
tk ldk] iqu% esjs }kjk mDr dk;Z gsrq fnukad 23@06@2017 dks frfFk fu;r dj] mHk; i{kdkj
dks lqpuk rkfey dj] xzke dksVokj rFkk dksVokj & [kEgfj;k] ywrjk ds lkFk ekSds ij mifLFkr

10
gq,]
ekSds ij QnZ cVokjk lwph rS;kj djus dh izfdz;k ds nkSjku vkosndx.k es ls
d`".kdqekj fi- dkfrZdjke n~okjk vuko’;d] vuqfpr fVIi.kh fd;k x;k] gYdk iVokjh & 08 o
i-g-u & 13 ls nqjZO;ogkj fd;k] lkFk gh gYdk iVokjh n~okjk rS;kj fd, x, iapukek dks xzke
& dksVokj ls Nhuus dk iz;kl fd;k] ftldh otg ls iapukek QV x;k] ftlls fookn c<+us
gh otg ls vfiz; fLFkfr fufeZr gks xbZ] bl izdkj ekSds ij QnZ cVokjk lwph rS;kj ugha fd;k
tk ldkA rFkk vkosnd isij izdk’ku djkus rS;kj ugha gq,A
vLrq izfrosnu ;Fkkfof/k vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq lknj laizsf"kr gSA ”
11. A panchnama was also prepared on 23-06-2017 in which the dispute
regarding preparation of fard batwara was observed which read as under:-
“ vkt fnukad 23@06@2017 dks vfrfjDr rglhynkj lhir ds Kkiu dzekad d@ok 1 @vfr0
rg0 @2017 lhir fnukad 24@04@17 ds ifjikyu esa gYdk iVokjh }kjk jktdqekj firk
dkfrZdjke oxS0 fo#) rqylhjke firk Nsnhyky oXkS0 ds izdj.k ds laca/k esa QnZ cVokjk lwph
rS;kj djus gsrq mHk; i{kdkj dks fof/kor~ lwpuk i'pkr~ xzke dksVokj rFkk mifLFkr xzkeokfl;ksa
ds le{k ekSds ij mifLFkr gq, ekSds ij vkosnd xM+ rFkk vukosnd xM+ mifLFkr gq, ekSds ij
vkosnd xM+ ds vuqlkj izR;sd [kljs dk rhu Hkkxksa esa foHkktu ugha djkuk pkgrk rFkk vukosnd
xM+ ekSds ij izR;sd [kljs dks rhu cjkcj Hkkxksa esa fgLlk@caVokjk pkgrk gS pwfd vkosnd QnZ
cVokjk fu;ekuqlkj cVokjk@ QnZ cVokjk djus gsrq jkth ugh gS bl dkj.k QnZ cVokjk ugh
fd;k tk ldk vkosnd x.k esa ls d`".k dqekj firk jktdqekj }kjk gYdk iVokjh 13 ,oa 8 ls
”
nqjZO;ogkj fd;k x;k rFkk iapukek esa gLrk{kj ugh fd;k x;kA
12. Thereafter, the proceeding was adjourned time to time and then on 23-02-
2018 the non-applicants have filed their objection in partition proceeding.
Vide order dated 21-03-2018 the Addl. Tahsildar directed the concerned
patwari to prepare the fard batwara on the basis of the quality, quantity and
potential of the subject property in presence of the police force and submit
rd
the panchnama, revenue map and fard batwara with respect to 1/3 share of
each parties. From the order sheets it further transpires that on 11-06-2018
the concerned patwari has submitted the fard batwara along with revenue
map and thereafter the Addl. Tahsildar proceeded for publication of

11
proclamation (istahar) and calling of objection. On 05-09-2018 when no
objection were received by the Tahsildar the case was fixed for passing of the
orders and then the case was fixed for 24-09-2018 and thereafter on 24-09-
2018 when the case was put up before the Addl. Tahsildar no date was given
for further proceeding and it was kept by the Addl. Tahsildar for consideration
and thereafter on 28-09-2018 the order has been passed. It further transpires
from the documents annexed with the reply filed by respondents No.5 to 10
annexed at page No.234 to 265 that the notices were issued by the patwari
concerned to appear on 19-04-2018 so that the fard batwara could be
prepared. It further transpires that different patwaris of different Halka
numbers have issued different notices to the parties to appear on 19-04-2018
for preparation of the fard batwara and wen some of the parties could not
appear they prepared the fard batwara and submitted it before the Tahsildar.
When the property is situated at different villages which comes under
different patwari halka numbers, the parties may not appear in different
places at the same time and then it cannot be said that despite service of
notices upon them they have not appeared during the process of preparation
of fard batwara and then the patwari concerned had prepared the fard
batwara in presence of the parties who were present. The very object of the
order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Tahsildar that
proper fard batwara should be prepared in presence of the parties and after
evaluating the quality, quantity and potential of the land fard batwara should
be prepared in accordance with law would be frustrated.
13. The challenge to the order dated 28-09-2018 before the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue) Masturi was dismissed on the ground that the rights of the
parties have been decided in the civil suit which has been traveled upto the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 28-09-
2018 is passed in accordance with law. The objection raised by the
petitioners during the proceeding of fard batwara have not been considered

12
by the appellate revenue authorities as to whether the order passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi dated 24-07-2014 and the order
passed by the Addl. Tahsildar Seepat dated 21-03-2018 have been complied
with or not in its true letter and spirit and the parties have been provided
proper opportunity to raise their objection at the time of preparation of fard
batwara. In absence of proper consideration of the objection raised by the
petitioners in preparation of fard batwara by the concerned patwaris the
purity and genuineness of the fard batwara so produced by the concerned
partwaris cannot be accepted. The orders passed by the Board of Revenue,
Additional Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer is based on the
consideration that the civil suit has been decided upto the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and that the rights of the parties have been determined and the
partition is in accordance with the observation made in the civil suit which
does not satisfy the requirement of the partition proceeding as has already
been ordered by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide orders dated 24-
07-2014 and the Addl. Tahsildar Seepat dated 21-03-2018.
14. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to remit the matter back to the
Tahsildar Seepat for deciding the partition application filed by the
respondents afresh after obtaining proper fard batwara from the concerned
patwaris in accordance with with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue) Masturi dated 24-07-2014 and by the Addl. Tahsildar
Seepat dated 21-03-2018 and also providing proper opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned. The orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated
24-08-2020 and the orders passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Bilaspur and
Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi and Addl. Tahsildar Seepat are
also hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar Seepat
to pass the order afresh as has been directed hereinabove.
15. Till passing of the order afresh by the Tahsildar, Seepat or period of one year
whichever is earlier from today, the possession of the parties over the subject

13
property as on today shall not be disturbed. The Tahsildar shall also consider
the alienation of the property made by any of the parties, if any, shall be
considered in favour of such party as practicable as possible and shall be
adjusted in share of their property.
16. The parties are directed to cooperate with the expeditious conclusion of the
partition proceeding and the parties are directed to appear before the
Tahsildar, Seepat on 06-11-2026.
17. With the aforesaid observation the present writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
Aadil