Writ jurisdiction is not maintainable against an appealable partition order where an efficacious statutory remedy exists.

The respondent No. 1 instituted Civil Suit No. 34A/2014 before the First Civil Judge, Class-II, Bemetara.

The suit, along with the petitioner’s counter-claim, was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15 February 2016.

Although the respondent’s first appeal was dismissed and a second appeal was pending before the High Court, the petitioner did not demonstrate that she had challenged the dismissal of her counter-claim, which consequently attained finality.

The petitioner thereafter applied for partition under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

By order dated 6 May 2019, the Tahsildar directed preparation of a fard bhatwara report by treating the parties as having equal, ½–½ shares in the property.

The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the Tahsildar’s order and recognition of an 80% share in her favour and a 20% share in favour of respondent No. 1.

Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 against the Tahsildar’s order passed under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code when an appellate remedy under Section 44 of the Code was available.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to challenge the determination of equal ½–½ shares when her counter-claim seeking rights in the property had been dismissed and that dismissal had not been appealed.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals.

It further applied Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, governing partition proceedings before the revenue authorities, and Section 44 of the Code, which provides an appellate remedy against orders passed under the Code.

The Court held that a writ or supervisory petition ordinarily should not be entertained where an effective and efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available.

The Tahsildar’s order dated 6 May 2019 was passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 178 of the Land Revenue Code and directed preparation of the partition report on the basis of equal shares.

Since the order was appealable under Section 44, the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory remedy rather than directly invoke the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

In addition, the petitioner’s counter-claim in the civil suit had been dismissed, and she failed to show that the dismissal had been challenged; the dismissal therefore attained finality.

In these circumstances, the Court found no justification to interfere under Article 227.

The prayer to quash the order dated 6 May 2019 and to declare an 80% share in favour of the petitioner was consequently rejected.

Any interim order stood vacated.