Disposed¶39

Pudgu @ Geetram (Died) through Lrs v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2025WPC/3255/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPC No. 3255 of 2023; Article 226; partition of agricultural land; fard partition and mutation; 1/5th share; Schedule 'A'; khasra no. 135, 288, 292; 1.24 acres; 5.955 acres; village Sanakpat, Tahsil Bemetara; decree dated 17.10.2012 in suit no. 42-A/2009; Board of Revenue Circuit Court Bilaspur order dated 08.05.2023 set aside as perverse; Naib Tahsildar Bemetara; petitioners Ferha, Tulsiram, Bharat Sahu; respondent Kumari Bai; Justice Arvind Kumar Verma; disposed of on 14.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.05.2023 of the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Bilaspur set aside; writ petition disposed of with the observation that the whole Schedule 'A' land be partitioned in terms of the civil court decree. ¶39

Pudgu @ Geetram (Died) through Lrs Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure P-1) is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and therefore liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The order dated 08.05.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 (Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Bilaspur) is perverse and is hereby set aside; learned counsel for both sides agreed to partition the whole Schedule 'A' land, which is part of the decree.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

In pursuance of the civil court decree, the Tehsildar/revenue authorities did not partition the land in terms of the decree: the 1/5th share was allotted only from part of the Schedule 'A' property (total 5.955 acres) and not from the whole property, thereby affecting only the property possessed by the petitioner.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPC No. 3255 of 2023, decided 14.08.2025 by Justice Arvind Kumar Verma: Writ petition under Article 226 by the legal representatives of deceased Pudgu @ Geetram seeking quashing of the Board of Revenue (Circuit Court, Bilaspur) order dated 08.05.2023. Pursuant to the decree dated 17.10.2012 in civil suit 42-A/2009 granting respondent no. 6 (Kumari Bai) a 1/5th share of the Schedule 'A' lands (total 5.955 acres, village Sanakpat), the Tehsildar's fard-partition/mutation order dated 12.07.2019 mutated only khasra nos. 135, 288, 292 (1.24 acres) in her favour — i.e., the 1/5th share was carved out of part, not the whole, of Schedule 'A', burdening only the petitioner's possession. Holding the Board of Revenue order perverse, the Court set it aside; both sides agreed to partition the whole Schedule 'A' land in terms of the decree, and the petition was disposed of.

¶1

¶2

ALFIZA BAIG

¶3

Digitally signed byALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.08.2214:04:32 +0530

¶4

2025:CGHC:41182

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3255 of 2023

¶7

1 - Pudgu @ Geetram (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03-01-2025

¶8

1.1 - Jethiya Bai (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 17-02-2025.

¶9

1.2 - Ferha Sahu S/o Pudgu Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sanakpat, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶10

1.3 - Tulsiram Sahu S/o Pudgu Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Sanakpat, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶11

1.4 - Bharat Sahu S/o Pudgu Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Sanakpat, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Collector, Bemetara, District : Bemetara,

¶15

Chhattisgarh

¶16

2 - The Board Of Revenue Circuit Court, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

3 - The Commissioner Durg Division, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶18

4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶19

5 - The Naib Tahsildar Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶20

6 - Smt. Kumari Bai Wd/o - Late Dheeraj Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Jhiriya, Tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶21

7 - Baldev Sahu S/o Shri Firangi Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Sanakpat, Post Office Pendritarai, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶22

8 - Toran Sahu S/o Shri Firangi Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Sanakpat, Post Office Pendritarai, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶23

... Respondent(s)

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent no. 7 and 8 : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent no. 6 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Order on Board

14.08.2025

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶29

Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

¶30

“a. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order datead 08.05.2023 with all consequential proceedings.b. To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. ”

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order Annexure P-1 is bad in law, being perverse and erroneous, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He submits that while passing judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012 the learned trial court has held that the respondent no. 6 is entitled to get 1/5th share over the suit lands mentioned in Schedule ‘A’. Respondent no.6 is entitled of 1/5th share over the lands mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ meaning thereby the respondent no. 5 will get 1/5th share upon all the khasra no. of land.

¶32

He further submits that while passing Fard Partition and mutation order dated 12.07.2019 the respondent no. 5 ordered for mutation of land bearing khasra no. 135, 288, 292 admeasuring area 0.36, 0.62 and 0.26 total admeasuring area 1.24 acres situated at village Sanakpat in the name of respondent no. 6 whereas the said lands are recorded in the name of petitioner.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents admitted that the civil suit bearing suit no. 42-A/2009 was filed by the respondent no. 6 and on 17.10.2012 learned trial Court has passed the decree vide order dated 17.10.2012 in favor of respondent no. 6 and held that

¶34

¶35

the respondent no. 6 is entitled to get 1/5th of share over the suit lands mentioned in Scheduled “A”.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the document available with utmost circumspection.

¶37

Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the overall aspects of the case, as per decree share of 1/5th is to be granted to private respondents from entire property of Schedule A. In Schedule A there is total area of 5.955 acres. The Revenue Authorities in pursuance of the decree passed by the learned Civil Court, Tehsildar has not partitioned the land in terms of the decree of the learned Civil Court and only 1/5th share has been allotted from the part of property and not from the whole property of the share which is affecting the property possessed by the petitioner only.

¶38

Learned counsel for both the respective parties agreed to partitioned the whole land of Schedule A which is a part of the decree. Therefore, order passed by the respondent no. 2(The Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh) vide order dated 08.05.2023 is perverse and is hereby set aside.

¶39

Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

Certified copy as per rules.

sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

alfiza

Pudgu @ Geetram (Died) through Lrs v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pudgu @ Geetram (Died) through Lrs v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwat Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neeldhar Samrath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Amin Meman Vs State of Chhattisgarh

D. Trinath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anwar Hussain and Other Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishchand Yadav Vs Manoj Kumar Singh