1. Extent of share between the petitioners and the respondents, of land was adjudicated by the civil court in a civil suit for partition filed by one of the parties. The jurisdictional civil court by its judgment and decree directed that Badri Prasad Kesharwani will get one half share in the suit property whereas, Chandrika Prasad Kesharwani, Kedarnath Kesharwani and Smt. Mohar Bai Kesharwani each one will get ¼th share in the suit land, and respondents No.5 to 8 herein will get ¼th share in the property. The total suit land which is agricultural land i.e. available for partition is 15.524 hectares and total khasra number is 37 situate at Village Gidhouri, Tahsil Kasdol. The judgment and decree of the civil court was affirmed by the first appellate court and also by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in second appeal.

2. Shri Badri Prasad Kesharwani made an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for partition of land as per the provisions contained in Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code'). On the said application for partition filed under Section 178 of the Code, a regular revenue case was registered by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kasdol for making partition and a proclamation was issued and parties were noticed in the said application. Reply was filed and fard batwara report was called from the concerned Halka Patwari. The Assistant Settlement Officer by its order dated 15-4-1999 considered the objection of non-applicants No.1 to 3 therein/petitioners herein and rejected the objection and proceeded for partition of land and made partition as per the order.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier, an order was passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer which was challenged in appeal and it was set aside by order dated 12-2-1999.

4. The order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 15-4-1999 making partition was assailed by the petitioners herein by way of appeal before the Settlement Officer, Raipur and the Settlement Officer, Raipur by its order dated 11-1-2000, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein holding that the partition made by the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 15-4-1999 was not in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Regarding Partition of Holding made under Section 178 of the Code and remanded the matter to the Assistant Settlement Officer to make fresh partition following Rule 4 of the said Rules framed under Section 178 of the Code.

5. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Settlement Officer, respondents No.1 to 4 herein preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Land Records and the Commissioner, Land Records by its impugned order dated 5-9-2008, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and restored the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer against which this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed stating inter alia that the learned Commissioner, Land Records has committed legal error in interfering with the order passed by the Settlement Officer by which the Settlement Officer directed for partition of land after following Rule 4 of the Rules framed under Section 178 of the Code for partition of holding.

6. Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, would submit that the learned Commissioner, Land Records is absolutely unjustified in interfering with the well reasoned order passed by the Settlement Officer in which it has clearly been held that the Rules framed under Section 178 of the Code were not followed while making partition and contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules Regarding Partition of Holding, each survey number has been subdivided, not a single survey number as a whole has been allotted to one person and productivity and contiguity of the plots has not been taken into consideration while making partition and the basis of productivity has also not been determined on the basis of kind of soil and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner,