Disputed legitimacy and inheritance rights must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, not revenue authorities.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 12 January 2023 concerning partition proceedings under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code.

He alleged that he was the legitimate son of late Pawansai and that respondent No. 6, described in the cause title as Pawansai’s illegitimate child, was not entitled to a share in the ancestral property.

He further contended that he had not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and that the revenue authorities had failed to consider the disputed questions of title and status.

Respondent No. 6 claimed to be the legitimate child of late Pawansai and asserted her entitlement to a share.

The State defended the concurrent orders passed by the revenue authorities.

Whether the High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, could determine the disputed question concerning respondent No. 6’s legitimacy and her entitlement to a share in the ancestral property.

Whether the order of partition passed under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code could be set aside in the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and that the revenue authorities overlooked questions of title.

Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code governs partition proceedings before the revenue authorities.

However, questions involving disputed title, legitimacy, legal status, and entitlement to inherited or ancestral property are disputed questions of fact requiring the recording and appreciation of evidence, and are appropriately adjudicated by a competent Civil Court rather than in writ proceedings.

The High Court may decline to decide such questions in writ jurisdiction and preserve the parties’ remedy before the Civil Court.

The Court found that the petitioner’s challenge depended substantially on resolving the conflicting claims regarding respondent No. 6’s legitimacy and consequent entitlement to a share in the property.

These issues could not be conclusively determined merely on the revenue record and required proper evidence.

Since the dispute involved legal status, title, and succession-related entitlement, the Court held that the competent Civil Court was the appropriate forum.

Accordingly, it declined to enter into the merits of the petitioner’s allegations regarding the partition proceedings or to interfere with the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

The writ petition was disposed of without interfering with the orders of the revenue courts, while granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief, including a challenge to the partition order, in accordance with law.