W @ $mGLE $Em2§£ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No.$’5m4 /201o Smt Kumari Bai, W/o Late Ananddhar Deewan, Aged about 78 Years. 2.“ Vipin Dhar Deewan, S/o Late Ananddhar Deewan, Aged about 53 Years. 3/ Prabha Devi, D/o Late Ananddhar Deewan, Aged about 62 Years. '41 Beena Deewan, D/o Late Ananddhar Deewan, Aged about 57 Years. 5./ Reeta Deewan, D/o Late Ananddhar Deewan, Aged about4.55 Years. .‘/ Shobha Deewan, D/o Late Ananddhar Deewan, Aged about 40 Years. 7./. Vikas Deewan, S/o Late Ananddhar. Deewan, Aged about 48 Years. All R/o Village Kharkharadih, Patwari Halka No. 143/23, Revenue Circle Nawapara, TahsiL Abhanpur, District—Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS ‘ RESPONDENTS If Smt. Sita Bai Choubey, W/o APPLICANT Shri Vyas Narayan Choubey, ,fAged about 65 Years. Rio Choubey Colony, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). . . V: g ....... " 6 «V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: \ Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra VVrit Petitian £227 g No. 5904/2010 PETITIONERS Smt Kumm‘i Bai and others Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Sim Bai Choubey and anather Agpearance: Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitionersf Shri V.K. Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN WDIA W (17.02.2011) The order under challenge has been passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the revision preferred by respondent No.1 Sita Bai. Respondent No.1 Sim Bal purchased the subject land by registered sale-deed dated 27/09/1971 from one Ananddhar Diwan. She obtained agricultural loan in October, 1971 and the sale—deed was deposited. Proceeding for recovery of the loan amount was initiated and during this entire period the sale-deed was in deposit with the hank, therefore mutation application cannot be moved. Howevei‘.‘she moved an application for mutation before the concerned Tahsildar who kept the matter in abeyance on the objection raised by the petitioners on the ground that a question regarding title has been raised. <3 t 2/ (2) , The said order passed bjfithe Tahsildar was under challenge H\ "before the Board of Revenue. While allowing the revision learned ‘r Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 13/07/2010 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Navapara and has directed the mutation of the name of respendent No.1 in the revenue records. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter was fixed before Board of Revenue on 13/09/2010 for'hearing on admission of the revision, however the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision without issuing notice to the petitioner who were objectors before the Tahsildar. (4) Learned counsel for the reépondent would submit that the petitioners have committed glaring fraud in obtaining an order of mutation in the name of dead persons and thus the Board of Revenue has not committed any error to‘ set at naught the fraud committed by l the petitioner. He draws attention of the court to document Annexure R-l (5) to buttress his submission, (5) Having heard learned counSel for the parties at length and having perused the documents available in the writ petition and return, it would appear to this court that the Board of Revenue should _\ have issued notice to the petitioner before deciding the revision finally. (6) Section 50 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code which confers revisional power‘ on the Revenue Courts including Board of Revenue provides that no order under challenige in the revision shall be varied x V i _ ‘ _ r ‘xor reversed unless notice has been served on the parties interested and l - \ opportunity given to them of being heard. t WM t \ \¢ r3, (7) There is apparent Violation of the mandate of law contained in (HDproviSo to Sub Section (1) of Section 50 of the Code and thus Without entering into the merits of the case the instant petition is allowed on this short ground. As a consequence, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue for decision afresh after hearing both the parties. (8) The petitioners as well as respondents shall appear before Board of Revenue, Camp at Raipur on 4m March, 2011 and thereafter the Board of Revenue shall proceed to decide the revision within further period of one month. Parties are also directed to cooperate in the hearing. (9) The writ petition is allowed with above observation. V\ m:g Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge CW”