Lekhram Chandrakar Vs Lomnarayan Chandrakar (Died) through Lrs

1.1 - (A) Resham Chandrakar W/o Late Lomnarayan Chandrakar Aged About 77 Years R/o 99 Kavita Nagar, Behind Anmol Flat, Avanti Vihar, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Swati Chandrakar W/o Devendra Chandrakar Aged About 59 Years R/o House No. 1221 Sec. 01 Behind Labour Commissioner Office Avanti Vihar, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

1.3 - (C) Arvind Chandrakar S/o Late Lomnarayan Chandrakar Aged About 58 Years R/o 199 Kavita Nagar, Behind Anmol Flat Avanti Vihar, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 1.4 - (D) Avinash Chandrakar S/o Late Lomnarayan Chandrakar Aged About 52 Years R/o 199 Kavita Nagar, Behind Anmol Flat Avanti Vihar, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Mrs. Shanti W/o Late Ramshankar Chandrakar Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Temri Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Pankaj S/o Late Ramshankar Chandrakar Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Temri Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Anupam S/o Late Ramshankar Chandrakar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Temri Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Mrs. Pratima Bahardwaj W/o Late Rajendra Bhardwaj Aged About 51 Years R/o Kadambari Nagar, Durg Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

2

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

02/01/2026

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute in this writ petition is related to an agricultural land bearing comprised in piece of Khasra No. 14/04, 404/1, 419/1, 421, 422/2 and 1214/1 total area 5.94 hectares situated at Village Loharsi, P.H. No. 20, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, CG. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 initiated partition proceedings before the Tehsildar and vide its order dated 31.05.2018 the disputed property was divided in equal share of 1.980 hectares between the petitioner and respondents. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue Patan District Durg, CG and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed vide its order dated 31.05.2019 thereafter second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Durg Division which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which by the impugned order was also dismissed. He submits that the Learned Board of Revenue has not considered true aspect of the matter and the civil suit in this disputed property is already pending. Thus it has not given any cogent reasoning while dismissing the revision therefore, the petition may be admitted.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Perusal of the record appended with the writ petition indicates that an application was filed by the respondent No. 1 for partition with respect to the disputed property. Perusal of the order of the tehsildar clearly indicates that though some dispute was raised and after considering the

¶26

3

¶27

demarcation report, and also considering the no objection by other respondents, the order of partition of the disputed property was passed and necessary amendment was directed to be carried out in the revenue records. This findings of fact has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Commissioner and Board of Revenue. The finding so recorded by the Revenue Courts below does not appear to be contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of

¶28

Constitution of India is not inclined to interference with the finding so recorded.

¶29