W. P. (227} NO. Petitioner Versus Respondents “2?!” Mohammad Sayeed Ahmed Son of late Jahur Ali, Aged about 53 years, Resident of Village Raghunathpur, Tahsil—Lundra, Distt. Surguja—(C.G.) OF 2009 State of Chhattisgarh, Through — The Secretary (Revenue), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, DisttRaipure (cs) Board of Revenue, Through Its Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja~(C.G.) Nayab Tahsildar Lundra, Distt. Surguja-(C. G.) Mohd.Kasim Son of Late Jahur Ali, Re sident of Village Raghunathpur, Luadra, Tahsil w. I Distt. Surguja—(C.S.} FFxEg” §< .7 RTiFEEWy» : \ > \ ’ g 31 I\ a) é? w; la s " , : a ' z; V = = i E r . ” , fa? i SE a a iii“; " .i d v, ”g“ f. IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Chairman Bilaspur, .J‘x stt. Bilaspur— (C.G.) Collector, Ambikapur, Di s’tt. Surguja—(C.G.) @L WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE men couRT OF cHHAmse H AT aiuspua , (5 Sigma Bencg: Hgn’hle gag gugtice gram Mar M‘ighra' Writ Petitiqgzzn No. g1 11 lam ‘ PETmONER Mohammad Sayeed Ahmed RESPONDENT?» State of Chhamsgarh and omers. r Versus Shn' V.K. Panéey, counsei for thé petitioner. _ Shn‘ Sanieev AgrawaL Pane! Lawyet for the State/respondents Na. 1 ,, and 3 to 6. . Shri Sunii Tripami, counsd for respondent No. 6. WRIT PETITLON UND§R§TiCkE 2g? OF THE CONSTITU‘NQNOF. iNDiA ' ' ‘ ORAL okDER (06.12.2010) Heard finally with the consent of hamad‘ coqhsel appearing for the partres. (2) One Jahur Ni father of petitioner and respondent No.6 movedan - appiioation before the Tahsitdar underSection 178-A of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hemineiier referred to the We). In the ;said application the rahsildar passed an order Vaiiotting‘me subject one o the U petitioner. Appeai preferred by the respondent No.6 before Sub Divisionai‘ Officer was dismissed,xHis appeai before the Collector. Surguia was aliowed‘ ‘ on 31" March. 2008 Annexore PI5 and the order passed by the Tahsiidar, : »_ and Sub Divisional Omoer in favour of the pehhoner was set-aside. Petitioner‘s revision before the Board of Revenue has been dismissedgby die impugned order Annexure P11. i L (3) Leamed counsei for the petitioner wouid submit that the Tahsiidar and ‘ sub Divisionai Ofiicer have passed reasoned orders and from the materiai k’avaitabte on record it woutd be estabtished that the respondent No. 6 was $ (b? aiready allotted iand by father Jahur Ali, therefore, as pef Jahur Ali‘s ' statement made before the Tahsihar, the subject land has been allotted‘to ’ the petitioner. He wouid submit that if any question of title has been raised by the respondent No.6, it was for him to me a Civil Suit asebserved by the I sub Dtvisional Omoer and thus the Collector, Surguja eommihed an'error of law by altowing the Second Appeal preferred bythe respondent No.6 and the 1 . Board of Revenue also committed an error in dismissing petitioner's revision * I r; x petition. (4) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 as wellas the State counsel have argued that ate-provision contained in 17S-A of the Code has no application in the present case and the application hled by Jahur Ali was not in accordance with law. Counsel for the respondent No.6 ' would further submit that there is no evidence that the said'respondaent was allotted any share in the land belonging to Jahur Ali and thus the entireland ‘~ l could not have been allotted to the petitioner and the Collector, Surguja a rightly passed the order setting aside the order of die Sub Divisional Ofhcer and the Tahsildar. (5) Section 178-A of the Code reads as under :- “178-A. Partition of land in life time of * / Ehumiswami.~ 41) Whenever e Bhumiswami wishes to partition his egricufturef fend amongst the bye! fairs during r his life time, he may apply forpemtion to me Tehsildar. (2} The Tehswar may, alter hearing the legal heirs, k divide the hokiing and apportion the assessment of'holding ' inacceWnceMththemlpsMunwwiiscode." On a reading of the applicationyAnnexure PI? moved by Jahur Ali ~ K 2‘ under Section 178-A of the Code it would appear that the said application no M ‘ where mentions that the respondent No.6 has already been ailoried‘ his share ‘ m the property or mat the same rs an apphcatron for partrhon Tins Court on a readrng of the apphcatron has no hesrhtron In holdlng m the Coiiector * has not committed any itlegai‘rty in allowing tho appeal preferred byvthe respondent No.6. (6) Learned counsei for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the sale-deeds Annexure P16 executed by the respondent No.6 to submit that he has disposed of the property aliotted to him in partition. The fact as to whether the respondent No.6 was ever atiotted any share in the partition is not mentioned in the application tiled by Jahur Ali purportedly under Section 178-A of the Code and further that the said issue cannot be decided in this writ petition and it can. only be decided in a duly constituted Civilsuit. ' (7) This Court does not find any case for interference in favour of the petitioner for setting-aside the order'passed by the Coilector. Surguia and v Board of Revenue. The parties, if they are so advised, may hie a duty t constituted Civil Suit to estabhsh their title. (8) With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed; Sdl i i Prashant Kumar Mishra’: Judge )e ‘