SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI $.R. NAYAK, G.J. WRH' PET'TIQN NO- 5389 ¢F 2m. PETITIONERS ‘ RS ESPONDENT 1. Blasiyus Kujur, Slo. iate Soma aged NON-APPMOANm servicemen Rio about 60 years. occupamn ax- Fundurdihari Lakarapara, Ambikapur, Disk; surguia; (CG) 2. Pa'sk'ar Kujur, s/o late soma, aged about 36 years, occupation cuitivator. R/o village Farsabahar, Tahsii Farsabahar. Distt. Jashpur, C.G. Smt. Mariyam widow oflate Soma, aged about 85 years, occupation house wife. R/o. village Kendutoli, Farsahahar. Tahsil, Kunkuri, Distt. .Jashpur, C.G. Vs. 1. Smt. Flora Khes, wile of Thomas Knee, aged about 45 years. occupation house wife, Rio village Fundurdihari, Tahsil and Dislt. Ambikapur, (C.G.) e2. Alexius Kujur. Slo. Late soma, aged“ about 57 years, R/o villager Farsabahar, 'Sub-Tahsil Farsabahar, Dian. Jashpur, C.G. Fausi @ Imaliya Kerkelta, wlo Clement,‘ aged about r54 years, Rio village Maujbhelva. Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur,C.G. 4. Elizabeth; wlo Augustus Ekka, aged about 42 years, R/o village Gadala, g Tahsil Kunkuri. disn. Jashpur, C.G. Tarsius Kujur. S/o late Soma, aged about 39 years, R/o village sanaval. Tahsil Pal, Distt. surguja. C.G. Present : 6. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur Camp, through its Chairman Tahsildr, Ambikapur, Distt. surguia, C.G. Shri Ashok Kr. shukla, leamed counsel for the pedhoners. Shri Utkarsh Vema, learned Dy. G.A. respondents 6 and 7, ORAL ORDER (Passed on 75‘ November, 2006) HIGH GOURT OF JUBWATURE GHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR y _a- If l may say so, a misconceived action on the panof the petmanets herein has enormously delayed the decision-making at the hands cf the 7‘" respondent who is the original. authority under the Chmuisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for shad ‘the Code’) in the mathr of muwng entries in the revenue records of the subject land. The hrst’ respondent herein made an application to the 7‘“ respondent to mutate the entries with regard to the subject land ln her name on the basis of a gin-deed execuwd by her father. The said application was opposed by the petidoners herein by tiling a statement of objections contending that since they have already instituted a civil suit with regard to the same subject land, me application tiled by the tirst respondent should be dismissed in Ir'mine without going into the merits of the matter. The said opposition raised by the petitioners was rejected by the Tahsildan Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision to the Coilector’, Surguja Dishlct. The Additional selector, surguja auowed the revisian and directed the 7“ respondent to keep the application of die first respondent pending. till the disposal of the suit instituted by the petitioners. Feeiing aggrieved by me said order, the met respondent preferred a revision to the Board of . Revenue, the sixth respondent herein. The sixth respondentwby the impugned order aliowed the revision of the first respondentand set aside the order of the Additional Collector, Surguja Dishiet. Hence, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitudon of India. (2) As l said, at the threshold, the opposition raised bythe petidoners was misconceived. simply because the petitioners have instituted a tide suit in the civil Court. that fact iBelf would not divest the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar. Ambikapur, who is the statutory authority under the Code to exercise the statutory powers in the matter of mutation of entries. But. it is @ , true that whatever may be the order that may be passed by the Tahsiidar or other statutory authorities under the code shalt be suhjoct ta we final result of the suit. It is well settled that he entries that may be ordered te be mutated by the statutory authorities under the Code shall alweye. be subject to the decree that may be passed by a competent civil court. ln other words, the entries made by thestatutory authorities are required to be altered, changed or modified so as to be in conformity wld'r the decree of the civil Court. Be that as it may, when the original authority itsetf has not passed any order on the application made by awe-met respondent, there was no reason for the Additional Collector to direct the 7'“ respondent to keep the application of the first respondent pending till the disposal of me suit. In that view of the matter. no exception could be taken to the order of the Board of Revenue. setdng aside the order of the Additional Collector, Surguja District. There is no failure of justice. The order made by the Tahsildar rejecting the opposition raised by the petitioners does not suffer from any jurisdictional flaw. Writ petition is, therefore. dismissed. The Tahsiidar, Ambikapur. the 7‘" respondent herein directed to dispose of the application tiled by the iirst wepondeht striotiy in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as poselbie, under any circumstance, within a period-of three months from the date of reoeipt of a copy of this order, after giving reasonable opportunities to both the sides to represent their respective case. No costs. l l Sol!- Chief Justice l