IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH 3 AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. C?>^3 _720Q8 » Petitioners (l^pn' ^^'ca'?-fej ^.^ •\\f\\y .'!/" rV.:\Y ^o^?" \ft Respondent (^ppQjcanbJ Smt.Kamla Devi, D/o Late Ram Prasad Sahu, W/o Mohan Lal Gupta, Aged about 62 years, R/o Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.), Through Power of Attorney Holder Hari Kishan Sahu S/o Late Ram Prasad Sahu R/o Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.). Hari Kishan SEihu S/o Late Ram Prasad Sahu, Aged about 73 years, R/o Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.). ,, Murarilal, S/o Late Ram Prasad Sahu, Aged about 54 years, R/o Village - Baloda Bazar, Patwari Halka No.14, Tahsil- Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur -(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22ZOFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Versus •'sc j^arB^. /y^ 6e HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR SinateBench:Hon'bleShriJusticePrashantKumarMishra PETITIONERS RESPONDENT Writ Petition (227tNo. 6969/ 2008- Smt. Kamla Devi and another. Vereys Murarilal Jf ShriBharatRqjput.cpunselfortfiepetttioners. Shri Somkant Verma, eounsel for respondent WRITPEnTIONUNDERARnCLE2270FTHECONSTrTUTIONOF INDlA ORALORDER (14.12.2010) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to chaltenge the order passed by the Board of Reyenue on 11/09/2008 (Annexure P/4) which in tum, was preferred by the respondent challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazar on 24/10/2007 (AnnexureP/3) allowingthe appeal preferredbythepetitiQners and directing mutation of the name of the petitioners as well as the respondent on the land owned bytheir motherNanki Bai. (2) Admittedly, the petitioners and the respondent are legal heire of deceased Nanki Bai who owned 5610sq. ft. of land at Baloda Bazar. The Sub Divisionat Officer refused to accept petitioners' plea for recording their name atong with the name of respondent inthe revenue records. Thesaid order ofSub Divisional OfRcer passed on 22/11/2006 wasset-aside bythe Additional Collector on 24/10ca)7and the Board of Revenue, whjle allowfng the revision preferred by therespondent, has set-aside the order passed by the Acklitional Collector, &l ^ -A- ; ' • : -: . ; (3) PetitionersareclahningtightandentitlementontheprQpertyQwned by NankiBai onthe basisofsuccession.whereasttiecaseofrespondentis that in a family partition land has beenallotted Inhis share and therefore he istheexclusiveownerofthesubjett land. — (4) Thereappears to be serious dispute betweenlhe partiesregarding ttieir n'ght andentiUementto succeed to the property belongingto late Nanki Bai. Both the parties are claiming to be in possession of some or the other partoftheland. (5) Inviewoftheobtainingfactualmatrix.ttiiswritpetitionisdisposedof with observation thatthe p^itioner, ifthey are so advised, may preferduly constituted Ch/il Suit before the jurisdictionalCivil Courtto ^tablish theirtitle and protect possession on the whole or the psirt pf the subject land. The parties shall maintein status-quo in all respect in relation to the tend in questionfor a periodof SG( monthsfromtoday. however, ifanyinterim order on the application^f any of the partiesto the suit is passed by the triat Court before the expiryofperiodofsbcmonths.theorderQfstatus-quoshallcease tohaveeffeGtfromthatdate. (6) The instant petition stands djsposed of with the atwve observations. Sd/- prashant^narMishra Judge