An admitted partition cannot be rejected solely for want of a formal partition deed.

The petitioner, Maniram, sought correction of the revenue records under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, concerning Khasra No. 618, measuring 1.20 acres, situated at Village Khargahna, on the basis of an alleged family partition.

Respondent No. 6, Chaitram, stated in his reply before the Tahsildar that a partition had taken place and that the petitioner’s name had consequently been recorded in the revenue records.

The Patwari’s inquiry and panchnama also indicated the petitioner’s possession over the land.

The Tahsildar allowed the petitioner’s application on 21 August 2014 and directed deletion of respondent No. 6’s name and recording of the petitioner’s name.

The Sub-Divisional Officer reversed that order on 27 May 2015.

The Additional Commissioner, in second appeal, restored the Tahsildar’s order on 21 December 2016.

However, the Board of Revenue, by order dated 20 January 2021, allowed respondent No. 6’s revision, set aside the Additional Commissioner’s order, and restored the Sub-Divisional Officer’s decision.

The petitioner challenged the Board of Revenue’s order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Board of Revenue erred in holding that there was no sufficient material to establish the partition, despite respondent No. 6’s admission and the supporting revenue record and inquiry materials?

Whether the alleged partition, mutation, and entitlement to compensation could be conclusively adjudicated in revenue proceedings or required determination by a competent civil court?

The Court considered Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which enables correction or updating of revenue records.

It applied the principle that an admission made by a party in pleadings or a reply is material evidence and cannot be disregarded without adequate justification.

The Court further recognized that mutation and revenue entries do not finally adjudicate civil title or substantive rights in immovable property; disputed questions concerning the validity of partition, title, and apportionment of compensation must be decided by the competent civil court.

The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was therefore exercised to correct the revenue authority’s failure to consider material evidence, without adjudicating the parties’ ultimate civil rights.

The Court found that respondent No. 6 had expressly admitted the factum of partition and had stated that the petitioner’s name was recorded pursuant to that partition.

This admission was supported by the Patwari’s inquiry, panchnama, and material indicating the petitioner’s possession.

Accordingly, the Board of Revenue’s conclusion that there was no material establishing partition was unsustainable.

The absence of a formal partition deed, by itself, could not justify ignoring the admission in the revenue proceedings.

However, because the validity of the partition, the parties’ civil rights, and their respective entitlement to compensation involved disputed questions of fact and title, the Court left those matters open for adjudication before the competent civil court.

It affirmed the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 21 December 2016 and the Tahsildar’s order directing correction of the revenue records.

The Court clarified that it had not finally determined the parties’ civil rights.

Respondent No. 6 was permitted to approach the competent civil court to challenge the alleged partition and mutation and to seek determination of entitlement and apportionment of compensation.

The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.