Revenue courts lack jurisdiction to resolve title disputes, which must be addressed in civil courts, and the Board of Revenue's order was upheld as valid and within its jurisdiction.

C A V Order

1. The challenge in present writ petition is to the legality and validity of the order of the Revenue Board dated 07.05.2004 ( Annexure P/1) wherein the board of revenue has has allowed the appeal by respondent and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, however the disputed computerized map was rejected and it was further directed to the concerned authority that it must make revenue entry on the basis of the original map prepared in the Year 1990 after considering the present situation of the spot.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present Petition, are hereunder :-

2.1 A Registered sale deed dated 15/06/1961 was executed between Tarachand Agrawal and Bishambhar Dayal being the joint purchaser with seller Shri Chandikeshwar Sharan Singh in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 334/1, area 22 acres at village Fundurdihari and land bearing Khasra No.3/1 at Ambikapur.

2.2 After purchasing said land, dispute arose between the purchaser which led to filing of one civil suit for partition by Bishambhar Dayal against Tarachand before Civil Judge Class-I, Ambikapur, bearing C.S. No. 126A/82. In such suit, compromise decree was drawn on 03.07.1986 wherein the land so purchased was divided as under ;-

2/16 – Ramkumar S/o Mai Sukhdas

5/16- Bishambhar Dayal

9/16 – Tarachand

For sake of brevity the said civil suit is referred as first civil suit.

2.3 In order to give effect to such decree a revenue case was filled by the Ramkumar S/o Mai Sukhdas for correction of Revenue records. Tehsildar on such application passed the order on 13.10.86 and all the properties were mutated accordingly in respect of those persons. This order was never challenged by any of the respective share holders.

2.4 Thereafter Baijnath agrawal (ancestor of present petitioner) had filled the another civil suit bearing No. C.S. 26A/87 alleging that the property which was acquired by the Bishambhar dayal is a joint family property and he had purchased such property as the Karta of the family therefore he along with his brothers are also entitled to share in such property.

2.6 On14.12.2007 the compromise decree was drawn and (1) Bishambhar Dayal (2) Baijnath and (3) Ramkumar all sons of Fakir Chand divided their share and 1.5 Annas share was given to Bishambhar Dayal, 1.5 annas was given to Baijnath and 2 Annas to the Ramkumar. The other brother Tarachand was also the formal party in such suit for sake of brevity the said civil suit called as “second civil suit”. It is also pertinent to mention here that two persons as Ramkumar were there, one is Ramkumar son of Mai Sukhdas, who obtained share in first civil suit. The other one is Ramkumar S/o Fakir Chand, who obtained share in “second civil suit”.

2.7 Pursuant to such civil suit the Teshildar had drawn proceedings of the mutation and the names of Baijnath and Ramkumar were mutated. It is also important to add here that no appeal or revision was preferred against such order of mutation of names by the Tehsildar.

2.8 On 20.07.1990 the a written partition deed was prepared wherein all the concerned parties scribed their signature. It was also averred that a coloured Map was also prepared which was attached along with this acknowledgment of partition deed which specifically shows the shares of the property which was distributed between the different persons in different colour.

2.9 After that a revenue case was filled by the 07.06.1997 for the partition however the such revenue case was dismissed by the revenue court by the Tehsildar for want of prosecution however the said revenue case was later restored on 22/05/1999. On 24.08.1999 the Tehsildar passed the final order which forms the genesis of the present controversy.

2.10 Legal heirs of the Ramkumar S/o Fakir Chand had filled an appeal against the order of the Tehsildar before the Sub Divisional Officer with delay. The Sub Divisional Officer without condoning the delay had passed the final order and reverted back the case to the Tehsildar for fresh adj