Disposed¶84

Kripa Ram Patel v. Naib Tahsildar

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2026WPC/4981/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; four consolidated writ petitions (WPC 4977, 4981, 5024, 5026 of 2025) against Naib Tehsildar, Pathariya partition order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P/4); civil partition decree alleged not honoured by revenue authority; remedy pointed to appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 44, CG Land Revenue Code; declaration of title and restoration of possession held not grantable in writ jurisdiction; petitions withdrawn/disposed with liberty to take recourse to law; decision dated 03/02/2026; single judge: Rakesh Mohan Pandey.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to law; permission to withdraw the petitions granted without adjudication on merits. ¶84

Kripa Ram Patel Vs Naib Tahsildar — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to law; permission to withdraw the petitions granted without adjudication on merits.

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the partition order passed by Respondent No. 1 (Naib Tehsildar) in favour of Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/4 is illegal and perverse and liable to be quashed/set aside. +3 more

¶75

Court's answer

The remedy available to the petitioners aggrieved by the order(s) of the Naib Tehsildar is to prefer an appeal, along with a copy of the judgment and decree passed in their favour, before the Sub-Divisional Officer in accordance with Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code.

¶81

Ratio / Principle

Reliefs of declaration of title and restoration of possession cannot be granted in writ petitions.

¶81

Key takeaways

On due consideration, the writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to take recourse to law (withdrawal permitted without adjudication on merits).ratio¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Four writ petitions (WPC Nos. 4977, 4981, 5024 and 5026 of 2025) filed by Balram Prasad, Kripa Ram Patel, Ramnath Dhuri and Mahesh Kumar Sahu challenged the order(s) dated 25.11.2024 of the Naib Tehsildar, Pathariya, District Mungeli (Respondent No. 1) — the partition order in favour of Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/4 — contending it was illegal and perverse and that the Naib Tehsildar had not honoured a civil judgment and decree of partition in the petitioners' favour. The High Court (Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey) held that the remedy lay in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code, and that reliefs of declaration of title and restoration of possession cannot be granted in writ petitions. Counsel for the petitioners thereupon sought leave to withdraw; no objection was raised. The Court disposed of the writ petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to law.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.04 11:04:59 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:5940

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 4977 of 2025

¶7

*** -** Balram Prasad S/o Bhushan Lal Patel Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Bhilai, Tahsil Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Office Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Nathu Ram (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16.01.2026

¶12

2.1 – (A) Ashok Kumar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶13

2.2 - (B) Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶14

2.3 - (C) Giraja Shankar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶15

2.4 – (D) Parmeshwar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶16

2.5 – (E) Ramakant Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶17

2.6 – (F) Bhuri Patel W/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil - Patharia, District - Mungeli (C.G.)

¶18

2.7 – (G) Shrimati Patel W/o Bhagawat Prasad Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kachhar, Post Office - Lofandi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶19

2.8 - (H) Shimati Nandani Patel W/o Mukesh Kumar Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Keshruwadih, Post Office Padampur, Thana - Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶20

--- Respondents

¶21

And

¶22

WPC No. 4981 of 2025

¶23

*** -** Kripa Ram Patel S/o Tungan Ram Patel, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Amora, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

Petitioner

Versus

1 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Office Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶28

2 - Nathu Ram (Died ) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16-012026

¶29

2.1 - (A) Ashok Kumar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶30

2.2 - (B) Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶31

2.3 - (C) Giraja Shankar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶32

2.4 – (D) Parmeshwar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶33

2.5 - (E) Ramakant Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶34

2.6 – (F) Bhuri Patel W/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶35

2.7 – (G) Shrimati Patel W/o Bhagawat Prasad Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Kachhar, Post Office Lofandi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶36

2.8 – (H) Shimati Nandani Patel W/o Mukesh Kumar Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Keshruwadih Post Office Padampur, Thana Jarhagoan, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶37

--- Respondents

¶38

And

¶39

WPC No. 5024 of 2025

¶40

*** -** Ramnath Dhuri S/o Kartik Ram, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Amora, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶41

--- Petitioner

¶42

Versus

¶43

1 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Office Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶44

2 - Nathu Ram (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 16-012026

¶45

2.1 – (A) Ashok Kumar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶46

2.2 - (B) Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶47

2.3 - (C) Giraja Shankar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶48

¶49

2.4 – (D) Parmeshwar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶50

2.5 - (E) Ramakant Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶51

2.6 – (F) Bhuri Patel W/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora, Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶52

2.7 - (G) Shrimati Patel W/o Bhagawat Prasad Patel Aged about 42 years, Resident Of Village Kachhar Post Office - Lofandi Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶53

2.8 – (H) Shimati Nandani Patel W/o Mukesh Kumar Patel Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Village- Keshruwadih, Post- Office - Padampur, ThanaJarhagaon Distt- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶54

--- Respondents

¶55

And

¶56

WPC No. 5026 of 2025

¶57

*** -** Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o Narayan Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o VillageBhilai, Tahsil- Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶58

--- Petitioner

¶59

Versus

¶60

1 - Naib Tahsildar Tahsil Office Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶61

2 - Nathu Ram (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Oder Dated 16/01/2026

¶62

2.1 – (A) Ashok Kumar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶63

2.2 - (B) Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶64

2.3 - (C) Giraja Shankar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶65

2.4 - (D) Parmeshwar Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶66

2.5 - (E) Ramakant Patel S/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶67

2.6 - (F) Bhuri Patel W/o Nathu Ram Patel Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Village- Bhilai Post Amora Tahsil- Patharia District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶68

2.7 - (G) Shrimati Patel W/o Bhagawat Prasad Patel Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village- Kachhar Post- Office- Lofandi, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶69

¶70

2.8 - (H) Shimati Nandani Patel W/o Mukesh Kumar Patel Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Village- Keshruwadih Post- Office Padampur ThanaJarhagaon Distt- Mungeli- (C.G.)

¶71

		---Respondents
For Petitioners	:	Mr. Vinod Kumar Shamra, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1/State	:	Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Government Advocate
For Respondents No. 2, 2(A) to 2(H)	:	Mr. K.L. Sahu, Advocate

¶72

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶73

03/02/2026

¶74

The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following reliefs:-

¶75

“ 10.1 That this should be declared by this Hon’ble Court that the partition order passed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 vide annexure P/4 is totally illegal and perverse hence it is liable to be quashed/set aside.

¶76

10.2 Wherever the question of title is being challenged before the civil court the revenue court have not such right to create conflict of the law.

¶77

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/direction against the respondent No. 1 to restore the ownership & title of the petitioner.

¶78

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”

¶79

It appears that the petitioners are aggrieved with the order(s) dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Pathariya, District- MungeliRespondent No. 1. It is contended by Mr. Sharma that the judgment and decree with regard to partition of the property has been passed in favour of the petitioners, but the Naib Tehsildar has not honoured that judgment and decree.

¶80

¶81

If the petitioners are aggrieved with the order(s) passed by the Naib Tehsildar, remedy available to the petitioners is to prefer an appeal along with copy of judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 44 of the CG Land Revenue Code. The petitioners have sought relief(s) or declaration of title, restoration of possession and such relief(s) cannot be granted in writ petitions.

¶82

Mr. Sharma, after arguing for some time, would seek permission of this Court to withdraw these petitions with liberty to take recourse to law.

¶83

No objection from other side.

¶84

On due consideration, these writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to take recourse to law.

¶85

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶86

vatti

Kripa Ram Patel v. Naib Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripa Ram Patel v. Naib Tahsildar

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

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Uttara Sahu (Banpela)

Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav Prop. Vs Dcit

Manish Travels Vs State Transport Authority

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Narayan Das Vaishanv

Smt. Triloka Vs Keshav Kumar Sahu

Balram Prasad Vs Naib Tahsildar