SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI,J. - (1.)BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31-5-2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Appeal No. 65-A/ 27/2003-04, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, maintaining the order dated 24-12-2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari as well as the order dated 14-7-2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Kurud.
(2.)THE brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are, that the petitioner was an agriculturist. On 8-4-1970, the petitioner purchased the land under the registered sale deed bearing Khasra No. 177/2 (new No. 178) admeasuring 9.40 decimal at Village Thua, Circle Kurud, Tehsil Dhamtari, District Raipur. THE petitioner was in possession of the said land. THE fact that the land "was purchased in the name of Kaliram Sahu (petitioner) was not in dispute. However, ownership was disputed by the respondent No. 4-brother of the petitioner, that such transaction was a benami transaction because on the date of purchase of the said land the respondent No. 4 was a minor, therefore, their father had purchased the land in the name of the petitioner as he was major at the relevant time. THE father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 had two more agricultural lands bearing Khasra No. 910 measuring 3.28 hectare and 9.62 measuring 2.42 hectare which were recorded in his name. THE respondent No. 4 moved an application for partition of the said property under Section 178 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "LRC") before the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Kurud. THE said case was registered as Revenue Case No. 03-A/ 27-2002-03 wherein the petitioner was ex parte. During preparation of 'fard batwar' under the provisions of the LRC by the Patwari, no objection was raised by the respondent No. 4 with regard to inclusion of land bearing Khasra No. 178, but after completion of the said proceedings, the respondent No. 4 raised an objection before the Naib Tehsildar and prayed for inclusion of land bearing No. 178 in the partition also on the ground that the said land was purchased benami by the father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and that too is a joint property. However, the petitioner has already sold the land bearing Khasra No. 178 to some other persons by a registered sale: deed and the respondent No. 4 did not raise any objection with regard to the execution of such sale deed in respect of the disputed land.
The Naib Tehsildar, Kurud, on the basis of the objection raised by the respondent No. 4 stating that the land was purchased benami by the father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 in the name of the petitioner and believing the oral evidences produced by the respondent No. 4 before the said Court, held that the land bearing Khasra No. 178 as a benami purchase which was purchased by the father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 in the name of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Revenue Appeal No. 03-A/27-2002-03 before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari, the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamtari by order dated 24-12-2003 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the said appeal, maintaining the order dated 14-7-2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Kurud. Again, being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal being Revenue Appeal No. 65/A-27/2003-04 before the Board of Revenue, Raipur. The Board of Revenue, Raipur, by order dated 31-5-2005 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, maintaining the orders passed by the Courts below. Thus, this petition.

(3.)MR. Soni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire action of the Tehsildar is contrary to Section 178 of the LRC as he has no jurisdiction to decide the title of any property including land. Learned Counsel further submits that as per the provisions as enshrined in the LRC, the Tehsildar ought to have referred the dispute with regard to title of the petition scheduled land to the Competent Civil Court. The Tehsildar decided the matter in favour of the respondent No. 4 and partitioned the property giving the half share to the respondent No. 4. MR. Soni would further submit that the action of the Courts below is violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction.
;