Revenue partition order kept in abeyance pending stay application in pre-existing civil suit.

The petitioner challenged an order dated March 6, 2025, passed by the Tahsildar, Ramanujnagar (Respondent No. 3), in a revenue case under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

The Tahsildar’s order allowed a partition application filed by Respondents No. 4 to 7 regarding subject land that the petitioner claims was bequeathed to him via a registered Will dated June 15, 1982.

Prior to the Tahsildar’s order, the petitioner had filed Civil Suit No. 187-A/2024 on July 3, 2024, which remains pending before the Civil Judge Class 2, Surajpur.

The petitioner contended that the Tahsildar failed to consider his objections regarding the pending litigation and the Will.

The respondents argued that the land was already recorded in the names of the petitioner and the husband of Respondent No. 4, rendering the long-delayed disclosure of the Will suspicious.

Whether the partition order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 178 of the CG Land Revenue Code should be kept in abeyance pending an application for stay before the Civil Court where a title suit is already underway?

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It considered the procedural application of Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which governs the partition of holdings by a Tahsildar.

The Court applied the principle of judicial propriety and administrative restraint, ensuring that revenue proceedings do not frustrate the adjudication of title and possession currently pending before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

The Court observed that since a civil suit involving the subject land was already pending before the Civil Judge Class II, Surajpur, prior to the Tahsildar’s order, it was appropriate for the Civil Court to determine the validity of the partition during the litigation.

While the respondents questioned the authenticity of the petitioner’s Will, they did not object to the limited prayer of allowing the petitioner to seek a stay from the Civil Court.

The High Court reasoned that to prevent the execution of the revenue order from rendering the civil suit infructuous, the petitioner must be granted the liberty to approach the trial court for interim relief.

Consequently, the Court determined that a temporary period of protection was necessary to allow the Civil Judge to evaluate the merits of a stay application.

The Civil Judge was directed to decide said application within 60 days of filing.

Critically, the Court ordered that the Tahsildar’s partition order dated March 6, 2025, be kept in abeyance until the Civil Judge decides on the stay application.