r's y\ COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT Wrlt PetltiQn (Art.2271 No.6332'of 2016 Petitloner- . . : - . Jltendra Kumar Agrawal, son'of Late Brijbhushan Agamai; aged 42 years, resident of Ner Sarvodaya Hospital, D'jbey Coiony, MOVQ, Ralpur. ResDGrideRts Versus 1. State of Chhattlsgarh, Through the Secretary;, Department of: Revenue, IVIantrayaia, D.K.S.Bhawan, .Raspur. 2. The ColiectQr, Ralpur. } 3. The Tehsiiclar, R.aipur. 4.. 'Gram Sevs. Samlts, a Tegistered soclety, through Its Secretary Shrl Ajay Tiwari, Kutc'ne"^ Chowk, Raipur,. . . . ./' : (Writ Petitson under Article 227 of the Constlt.ution of Indla) Mr.Manoj Paranjape; counsei forthe'petitloner. Ms Sangeeta Mishra, PaneS Lawyerfor respondents No.1 to 3/State. Ivir.R.K.KesharA'ani, counsel for respondent No.4. (SB: Hon'bSe'Mr.T.P.Sharma, <j.) GRDERiORAy (3-8-2011) 1. 3y thls petitlon under Artide 227 of the Constltution of India the pstltioner has chailenged the Isgaiity and propriety of the order dated 10.5.2010 (Annsxure P/9) passed by the CoSlector, Raipur in Revenue Case No.OS/B- 121/'2008-09, whereby sn the llght of the order passed by tNs Court In Writ Petltion (C) No.6906/2008 agaih inqusringthe matter the Coliector has passed the order impugned and 'nas quashed the order passed by the Tahsiidar, Raspur dated 31.1.2008, v^hereby the name of the petitloner has been mutated on the basls of ssle deed executed by one Lakhanlal In favour of father of the petitloner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parttes, perused the order impugned and order passed bythe Tahslldar i.e. correctlon ofrevenue entry. nw^ lr,lir'1"4;;^ '!;1';:1\ it^J4:..: ^SE^JJI^ j^ IIC i A^ -^- 3. Learned counseS for the petitioner submJts that by aforesajd order of correctlon the Tahsildar has mutated t'ne property In dlspute JR the name of the present petltloner on the ground that after death of origlnai purchaser Brijbhushan Agrawai, son of Brijbhushan AgrawaJ has succeeded the property whlch hss been purchased by father ofthe petltloner by reglstered sa!e deed dated 21.1 .1965. While making such correctjon/mutation of name of the petitioner, Tahsiidar has specificaESy made a note that name ofseller has not been recorded in revenue record v>/hich shows that at the time of such correction. names of Lakhanlalahd others were not recorded in revenue record. On the basis of compialFst, the Coiiedor has inquired the matter snd passed the order reversing such entry, whlch wss chailenged before thls Court In Writ Petitlon (C) No.6906/2008 and after order of this Court ths Collector after providing an opportunlty of heanng to the partses has upheid the prevsous order. Leamed Gounssl further submlts thst same was aSso challenged before the SDO and after passlng of orders of SDO and Coljector, second appeal is pendlng before the Commlssloner. 4. At the outset, alisged order of correctlon of revenue record made by Tahslldar reveais that Tahsiidar has corrected revenue record on thebasls of saEe deed and has made endorsement that name of seijer h<is not been recorded in revenue record. in these circumstances, any revenue authority w?as not competent to correct the name of such person before any inqulry or correctlon of the revenue record in accordance with ruie.In case, name of seller has not been recorded in revenue record, then the only option was left to the revenye offscer to examsne the matter and correct the entry from. iast recorded owner on the basls of acquisltion of tltie, but by not adopting such procedure, aforesaid correctlon made by he Tahslidar was perse lllegai. 5. The Coilector has rightly passed the order. By passing such order the Coilector has not commltted any ilSegaiity, but the present petltloner is not debarrsd from avaiilng remedy avallable under C.G. Land Revenue Gode on the basls of acqulsitlon of rsgnt for mutatson of his name after filing comprehensive appilcstion showlng that how he has acqulred the titls over the property and who were predecessor-in-tsie of such property. Sf such appllcation Is fiied on behaif of the petitionsr before revenus authority stating the acquisition of titie from predecessor-in-tlSs showing its order of succession/aiienatlon, then wlthout snfluencing ths order of this Court, sy -;r^, 'M^^' ' % ^•'^^ . x' "•'"1^^. -'3> revenue authorities indudlng Tahsiidar shali Inqulre the matter after providing an oppprtunity of hearing to the interested parljes and pass the orderafresh. 6. it is also hereby mentioned that as per information given by the part'ies second appeal Is pendlng befors the CommissloRer. Partles are at liberty to make submission before the Commissloner in case of necessifr^. They are aiso at ilberty to flie additjonal evidence before the Commissioner In appeilate stage to enable It to dscide the real controversy. 7. Wrth the aforesaid obssrvatlon, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as tocosts. ^ \? Sd/- T.P. Shanna Judge ^v