Quashed

Kailash Chandra Godwani v. Smt. Krishna Lekhwani

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2024WPC/5917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an order of status quo passed by the Board of Revenue in a revenue revision case. The court held that since the matter involved a clear-cut title dispute between heirs and a claimant under a will, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide it, and proceedings were stayed pending a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

The order of status quo dated 27.8.2024 is quashed. Proceedings before the Board of Revenue are stayed. Parties are directed to file a civil suit to resolve the title dispute.

Kailash Chandra Godwani Vs Smt. Krishna Lekhwani — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 5 WPC No. 5917 of 2024

¶2

2024:CGHC:47475

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 5917 of 2024

¶6

1 - Kailash Chandra Godwani S/o Late Shri Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani Aged About 56 Years R/o Sindhi Colony Patankar Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Smt. Kaushilya Panjwani D/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajnmal Godwani Age About 53 W/o Shekhar Panjwani R/o Near Shiv Shoes Axis Bank Devliroad Dayal Nagar Wardha Takshila Budh Vihar Maharashtra 442001

¶8

3 - Smt. Sadhna Lalwani D/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani Aged About 50 W/o Karish Lalwani R/o Opposite Barah Kholi Sindhi Colony Murtijapur Maharashtra 444107

¶9

4 - Vinod Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Age About 42 Godwani R/o Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶10

5 - Ajay Kumar Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani Age About 43 R/o Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶11

6 - Shankarlal Godwani S/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani Age About 47 R/o Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶12

7 - Smt. Usha Godwani W/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani Age About 73 R/o

¶13

Shadaninagar Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶14

8 - Pawan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani Age About 58 R/o Shadaninagar Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶15

9 - Bhawan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani Age About 56 R/o Gurunanank Nagar Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶16

10 - Sanjay Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani Age About 54 R/o Shadaninagar Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶17

11 - Roshan Godwani S/o Late Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani Age About 52 R/o Shadaninagar Sindhi Colony Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 4,vinod Godwani Is Power Of Attorney Holder Of Petitioner No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, And Petitioner No. 11, Roshan Godwani Is Power Of Attorney Holder Of Petitioner No. 7, To 10

¶18

... Petitioners

¶19

BINIPRADEEP Digitally signedby BINIPRADEEPDate: 2024.12.0517:11:45 +0530

¶20

2 / 5 WPC No. 5917 of 2024

¶21

versus

¶22

1 - Smt. Krishna Lekhwani W/o Shricahand Lekhwani R/o Sindhi Colony Knwar Nagar Durg Tah. And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶23

2 - Smt. Ritika Tejwani D/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani W/o Mahesh Tejwani R/o Gani No. 2, Kasturba Nagar Near Krishan Mandir Jari Patka Nagpur (M.H.)

¶24

3 - Smt. Rekha Bai W/o Late Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani R/o Behind Bus Stand Gundardehi Tah. Gundardehi District - Baloda (C.G.)

¶25

... Respondents

¶26

(Cause title has been taken from Case Information System)

¶27

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate on caveat

¶28

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶29

Order on Board

¶30

03.12.2024

¶31

The petitioners have preferred instant petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, challenging order dated 27.8.2024 passed by Board of Revenue (Annexure-P/1), whereby revision filed by respondent No.1 has been admitted and order of status-quo has been passed in respect of disputed land. In instant petition, following relief has been sought for by the petitioners:-

¶32

10.1 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the Courts below.

¶33

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of CERTIORARI quashing the order dated 27.8.2024 passed by learned Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh Bilaspur (CG) in Revenue Revision Case No.RN/05/R-A-6/212/2024 (Annexure P-1)

¶34

3 / 5

¶35

WPC No. 5917 of 2024

¶36

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ or direction or orders as deem fit in the interest of justice.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Kallumal @ Kalyandas Godwani and Bhajandas @ Bhajanmal Godwani are real brothers and they were owners of land bearing Khasra No.140 area 0.077 hectare situated at village Phulgaon, PH No.25 Tahsil and Distt. Durg. After death of Kallumal and Bhajanmal in the year 2021 and 2019 respectively, aforesaid land was mutated in the name of the petitioners and respondents 2 & 3 in revenue record as they are sons/daughters/wife of Kallumal and Bhajanmal. Against that mutation order, appeal was preferred by respondent No.1 before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg bearing Appeal No.202401100400144/A-6/2023-2024 (Annexure-P/4), stating inter alia that Kallumal and Bhajanmal had executed Will (unregistered) on 30.3.2008 in her favour. In that appeal, SDO(Revenue), Durg directed that since there is title dispute between the parties, therefore, the parties may resolve their dispute by filing civil suit before the competent court. That order was challenged by respondent No.1 before Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg by filing second appeal bearing No.297/A-6 year 2023-24 (Annexure-P/5), in which the Commissioner upheld the order passed by the SDO (Revenue), Durg vide Order dated 22.8.2024. Order passed by the Commissioner was put to challenge by respondent No.1 before Board of Revenue by filing revision bearing No.RN/05/R.A-6/212/2024, in which, the Board of Revenue has admitted the revision and passed order of status-quo. Learned counsel further submits that present petitioners are sons/daughters/wife of Kallumal and Bhajanmal, therefore, they are Class-I heirs of Kallumal and Bhajanmal, but respondent No.1 is claiming her title over the disputed land on the basis

¶38

4 / 5

¶39

WPC No. 5917 of 2024

¶40

of Will, which is false and fabricated as Kallumal and Bhajanmal have never executed any Will in favour of respondent No.1. Thus, there is clear cut title dispute between the parties, therefore, the SDO(Revenue) and the Commissioner have rightly held that such title dispute may be decided by Civil Court, but vide impugned order, Board of Revenue has admitted the revision to decide the title dispute, which cannot be done by it. Such dispute can only be decided by the civil Court, therefore, it is prayed that instant petition may be allowed and order of status-quo passed by Board of Revenue may be set aside.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that it has been settled by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Girdhari vs. Bhondu @ Barati & Ors. (WA No.560/2022) that any order passed by Board of Revenue cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather it can be challenged only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the petitioners have filed instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, the same is not maintainable. He would next submit that respondent No.1 has not filed any mutation application, rather she challenged the mutation order passed by the Tahsildar as the same has been passed without compliance of provisions of CG Land Revenue Code, 1959, as no paper publication etc. has been done. He would further submit that Board of Revenue has fixed the case for final hearing on 24.12.2024, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record.

¶43

Without entering into the merits of the case, grievance as projected by the petitioners and observation made by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg is that since

¶44

5 / 5 WPC No. 5917 of 2024

¶45

there is title dispute between the parties, as the petitioners are claiming their title on the basis of inheritance/succession and further they are challenging the genuineness of the alleged Will executed by Kallumal and Bhajanmal in favour of respondent No.1. In other words, respondent No.1 is claiming title over the disputed property on the basis of Will. As such, there is clear cut title dispute between the parties. It is settled preposition of law that once the title dispute is revealed before the revenue Court, then the revenue court ought not to have interfered in the dispute and the parties ought to have been directed to resolve their dispute from competent civil court, which has rightly been done by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg and the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg. But the Board of Revenue unnecessarily admitted the revision and passed order of status-quo.

¶46

In a catena of judgment by the Apex Court, it has been held that title dispute cannot be decided by revenue Court, rather it can be decided only by civil Court, therefore, without entering into merits of the case, order of statusquo dated 27.8.2024 passed by Board of Revenue, is quashed and further proceedings of revision pending before Board of Revenue is stayed. The parties are directed to file appropriate civil suit before the competent civil court to resolve title dispute persist between them.

¶47

In view of the above observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶50

Judge

¶51

Bini

Kailash Chandra Godwani v. Smt. Krishna Lekhwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chandra Godwani v. Smt. Krishna Lekhwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Devi Ravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Mittal Minerals Vs Union of India

Jageshwar Prasad Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Public Information Officer, Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Nitin Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Son Das Vs the State of Chhattisgarh