Writ jurisdiction will not resolve disputed property-identification issues where an effective civil remedy is available.

Respondent No. 5 initiated partition proceedings under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, concerning certain holdings.

The petitioners challenged the resulting revenue orders, alleging that the proceedings concerned different Khasra numbers from those in the original application and that they were not impleaded or given an effective hearing.

The Board of Revenue dismissed their revision and subsequent review petition.

The petitioners then sought, under Article 226, to quash those orders and the underlying proceedings.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the Khasra-number and property-identification disputes involved questions of fact and could be addressed by the competent Civil Court.

1. Whether the alleged discrepancy in Khasra numbers and the related challenge to the partition proceedings warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the petitioners should be left to pursue their claims concerning the partition or their rights in the property before the competent Civil Court.

Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was the provision under which the partition proceedings had been initiated.

In exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court declined to determine disputed questions of fact concerning property identification and Khasra numbers in the absence of material showing that the alleged discrepancy had been raised before the Revenue Authorities.

Claims concerning partition or independent rights, title, or interest in property may be pursued before the competent Civil Court, where evidence can be led and factual disputes adjudicated.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the Revenue Authorities had passed concurrent orders and that the petitioners had not substantiated, by reference to the record, that the Khasra-number discrepancy had been raised before the authorities at the relevant stage.

Determining the correct property identification and the parties’ respective rights would require examination of disputed facts, which the Court considered inappropriate in writ proceedings.

A Civil Court could hear evidence and decide those matters; accordingly, the Court left the petitioners free to seek relief there.

It directed that any such proceedings be considered by the Civil Court in accordance with law and on their own merits.