j F RCT 'iaa 8i6'^y IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1 WRIT PETITION f2271 N0. •>%Q-:> OF 2009 K PETITIONER Plaintiff ./-^' L,*-'**\ ^.^*>& \'f- yiLA- '"..--^' Sudhiya Bai, Daugher ofAmar Singh, widow of Bhola Yadav, aged about^iy/ears, R/o Village " fc>' Gopalbhaina, Police Station and A":\^.°^ .^•-'&^ s<^> ^•" ...<^~' District Durg RESPONDENTS Defendants '•taiu'-SS Tahsil Navagarh, (C.G.) VERSUS ^" 1. Jitendra Singh Bhuval, son of Baldau Singh Bhuval, aged about not known, R/o Village Gopalbhaina, Police Station and Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) .'" 2. Mutan @ Jethiya, wife of Banshi Yadav, aged about not known, R/o Village Betar, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Collector, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I'l^iteiilt^i^te 1^1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASIHJR WRIT PETITION (227»No.5803 Of 2009 PETITIONER Plaintiff RESPONDENTS Defendants Sudhiya Bai Versus Jitendra Singh Bhuval and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. ORALORDER (Passed on 06th day of January, 2011) t-1eard. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 24- 08-2009 passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revenue Revision Case NO.R.N./05/R-A-6/198/07 rejecting the petitioner's revision affirming the order of Additional Collector who reversed the order of S.D.0. and affirming the order of Tahsildar directing mutation of suit land in favour of respondent No.1. 3. Undisputed facts in brief are as under: Out of certain lands recorded jointly in the name of the petitioner and one Ratnu (slnce deceased) i.e. father of respondent No.2 Mutan, the petitioner preferred an application for partition under Section 178 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code (for short the Code') which according to Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner is still pending. The said Ratnu sold some of lands recorded in his and the petitioner's joint name to respondent No.1. Respondent No, 1 applied for mutation. The Tahsildar without issuing any notice to the petitioner mutated the 'ws iand in favour of respondent No.1 in accordance with the sale deed. The-petitioner preferred an appeat before the Sub DMsional Officer and the appeal was atlowed. Against which, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Addittonal Collector which was allowed and the order of Tahsildar was restored and the revision preferr«lby the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was dismissed, hence this petition. 4. Undisputedty, the land was recorded in the joint name of petitioner and late Ratnu, at the time of execution of sale deed by late Ratnu in favour of respondent No.1. When the land was jointly recorded in the petltioner's name as well as in the name of respondent No.1, then it was incumbent upon the TahsiUar to serve notice upon the petitioner before passing any order of mutation. This is also requirement of principle of natural juslice and the Rules framed under Section 110 of the Code. Passing of an order without issuing such notice to the person concemed is illegal. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, The S. D.0. was right in setting aside the order of Tahsildar and the order of Board of Revenue suffers from illegality which deserves to be and is hereby quashed. 5. For the foregoing, the petition is atlowed. The matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar for decision afresh on the application of mutation fited by respondent No.1, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after giving her opportunity of hearing. It is also directed that the Tahsildar shall decide the mutation case within a period of three months from the date of sen/ice of notice on the petltioner. 6. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Kvr