Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction under Section 250 of L.R. Code to order eviction from residential buildings.

The petitioners (occupants) were residing in a single room constructed on land bearing Khasra No. 197/14 in Bilaspur. Respondent No. 6 (the owner) filed an application before the Tahsildar alleging that the petitioners were tenants at a rent of ₹500 who refused to vacate despite requests

The Tahsildar, vide order dated 25.05.2017, ordered the eviction of the petitioners and directed them to hand over vacant possession to Respondent No. 6

This order was successively upheld by the Sub-Divisional Officer (R), the Commissioner of Bilaspur Division, and finally the Board of Revenue

The Board of Revenue treated the proceeding as one under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, justifying the Tahsildar’s jurisdiction even though the subject matter was a residential room

The petitioners challenged these orders via a writ petition, claiming the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction over house evictions

1. Whether the Tahsildar has the jurisdiction under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, to order the eviction of an occupant from a residential building/room as opposed to agricultural land

2. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant regarding a pucca room falls within the summary remedy provided under the Land Revenue Code

Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which provides a summary remedy for a Bhumiswami dispossessed of "land"

The court relied heavily on the precedent Krishnakumar Das v. Balram Das (1971 MPLJ 864), which established that while "land" may fictionally include buildings, the dominant purpose of Section 250 is to restore possession of land held in Bhumiswami rights, not residential houses

The Court reasoned that the Tahsildar and subsequent revenue authorities failed to distinguish between "land" and a "residential room." The court noted that the Respondents’ own application admitted the petitioners were inducted as tenants in a constructed room

Following the ratio in Krishnakumar Das, the Court observed that when the dominant purpose of a claim is to recover possession of a house or a room, such a structure cannot fall within the fictional definition of "land" under the Code to grant a Tahsildar jurisdiction

Consequently, Section 250 of the Code of 1959 is not attracted in cases of residential tenancies in urban areas like Bilaspur; instead, such disputes must be adjudicated by the Rent Controlling Authority or a competent Civil Court

The revenue authorities committed a jurisdictional error by treating a tenancy dispute over a pucca room as a summary land revenue matter

The Court held that the Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to register cases or pass eviction orders concerning residential accommodations

Respondents were granted liberty to seek redressal through appropriate proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority or a Civil Court in accordance with the law