Chhattisgarh HC Sends Family Property Partition Back After Same-Day Notices Across Villages, Protects Possession Until Fresh Order Or One Year, Whichever Comes First

The petitioners challenged a revenue partition of the parties’ properties.

Their civil suit seeking declaration of title and injunction was ultimately dismissed after the High Court allowed the defendants’ second appeal; the Supreme Court also dismissed the petitioners’ challenge.

On the respondents’ partition application, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) had earlier remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing that a fard batwara be obtained and objections invited.

The Additional Tahsildar subsequently ordered partition on 28 September 2018, and the revenue appeals and revisions were dismissed.

The petitioners contended that the fard batwara was prepared without their effective participation and resulted in an unequal division; the respondents maintained that the required process had been followed.

The Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioners’ revision on 24 August 2020, leading to this petition under Article 227.

The Court’s decision rested on the procedural requirements previously imposed in this partition proceeding: the fard batwara was to be prepared in the parties’ presence, taking account of the land’s quality, quantity and potential, and the parties were to have an opportunity to raise objections and be heard.

Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was invoked by the petitioners in arguing that the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction to partition houses and residential plots; the Court did not decide that question.

No precedent was cited or applied in the Court’s reasoning.

The record showed that the patwari had previously been unable to prepare the fard batwara because of disputes at the site.

Although notices were later issued, the properties lay in different villages and under different patwari circles, and the Court considered that the parties could not necessarily attend proceedings at different locations at the same time.

The authorities below did not adequately examine whether the earlier directions had been complied with or whether the petitioners had received a proper opportunity to object to the fard batwara.

In those circumstances, the Court found that the partition could not be sustained without a fresh, procedurally compliant exercise.

It remitted the partition application to the Tahsildar, Seepat, for fresh decision after obtaining a proper fard batwara in accordance with the earlier directions and giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.

The parties’ existing possession was to remain undisturbed until the fresh order or for one year from the judgment, whichever occurred earlier; any alienations were to be considered, as practicable, for adjustment in the relevant party’s share.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 6 November 2026.