Father’s Land Partition Between Sons Stands After Chhattisgarh HC Finds Challenging Son Raised No Objection During Proceedings

Respondent No. 2, the petitioner’s father, applied under Section 178-A of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, to partition his land between the petitioner and respondent No. 1.

The Nayab Tahsildar ordered partition on 20 September 2021.

The Sub-Divisional Officer set that order aside and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication; the Commissioner affirmed that decision.

The Board of Revenue allowed the respondents’ revision, restored the Nayab Tahsildar’s order, and noted that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings but had not objected to the partition or the Fard Batwara.

The petitioner challenged the Board’s order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate authorities.

In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court may examine jurisdictional error but does not re-evaluate factual disputes concerning the quality, quantity, or potential of land allotted to parties.

Section 178-A of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was the provision under which the partition application had been made.

No precedent was cited.

The Nayab Tahsildar’s order incorporated the Fard Batwara, which divided Khasra No. 471 among three parties and Khasra No. 151 between the petitioner and respondent No. 1.

The petitioner’s contention that the allotments differed in value or agricultural potential raised a factual dispute that the Court would not re-examine under Article 227.

The Board had also found that the petitioner participated in the partition proceedings but raised no objection, and the petitioner produced no document showing that he had objected before the Nayab Tahsildar.

The Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Board’s decision.

It left the petitioner at liberty to pursue any appropriate proceeding to redress his grievances.