HIGH COURT OF THB CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition No. 3291 of 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1'arachaD.d son of Deenbaadhu Aghadya, aged about 38 yeai's, resident of viUage Nawraiigpur, PO Patsendri, P.H.N.3814, TahsU Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Kaiihaiya, son of Shri Peela das Patel, caste Aghadya, aged about years, resident of Nawrangpur, PO Patsendri, P.H.N. 3814, Tah. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G) 2. The Board ofRevenue, Circuit Court at Raipur, Chhattisgarh, through Presiduig Ofl&cer 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.), Saraipali, Distt.Mahasamund (C.G). 4. The Talisildar, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G) WRIT PBTETION UNDBR ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA Appearaaee: Shii Raghavenclra Pradhaa, counsel for fhe Petitioner. Shii Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for respondent no. 1. Shri Paiikaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, for fhe State/ respoudents No, 2 to 4 ORAL ORDBR (1S.04.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Hem'd on admission. Tlie petitioner has liied this writ petitiou fbr the foUowmg retiefs: W.P.No. 3291/2005 .J. 7. RELIBF(S) SOUGHT: The petitioner prays for tiie followiag rellef(s): 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 The Hon1)le Court niay kmdly be pleased to issue a writ iii fbe nature of certiorari, whereby fhe order of flie learaed Boai'd of Revenue dtd. 16.2.2005 (Annexure P- 1), order of ttie leanied S. D.0. dated 15.5.2001 (Annexure P-2) aad fhe order dated 31.5.2000 (Annexure P-3) passed by fhe leanied Tahsildar, be quashed/ set aside. The Hon^le Court inay kiiidly be pleased to issue a writ io. the nature of inandamus, du'ectmg the Respondents to niutate Uie nanie of tiie petitioner io. respect of fhe propeity purchased vide Annexure P-4, The HonT^le Court niay kiadly be pleased to call flie entire record froni the courts below relating to the present case. Any other reUefwhich theHon'ble Court deeras fit inay also kitidly be graated. Thus the petitioner is prayiag for quashnient of fhe orders passed by ttie TahsUdar, Sub-Divisional Ofiicer and flie Board ofrevenue aad for directmg the concemed aufhorities to inutate fhe laad ia question m favour offhe petitioner in. fhe revenue records. The claim of fhe petitioner is based upon ttie registered sale deed dated 28.5.1996 whereby the laad bearing Kh.No.50 area 0.28 hectares situated m village Nawrmigpur P.C. No. 38/4 of Tahsil SaraipaJi, Distt. Matiasaniund has been toraiisfen'ed to liioi for consideration of Rs. 14,000/ -. After traasfer of fhe laad ia his favour when tlie petitioner filed aii appHcation for mutation; aa W.P.No. 3291/2005 objection was taken by respondent no. 1 showiag fhat he has not sold the said laiid to the petitioner; fhen tlie raatter was taken as disputed rautation case aad fhereafter fhe same was adjudicated by the TalisUdar under tiie provisions ofthe Laad Revenue Code. Siuce tlie petitioner could not satisfy Tahsildar regarcliag execution'of the sale deed and tiie sale deed was challenged by respondent no.l, the Tahsildai' denied to inutate fhe land in favour of the petitioner and tlie appUcation was disinissed. This order was raaiataiaed by fhe Sub-Divisional Ofiicer ia Revenue Appeal No.l23-A/6/year 1999-2000 and further ia Second Appeal No.79/A-6/2002-2003 by tiie Board ofRevenue. A perusal of fhe orders passed by flie Reveiiue Autliorities would show tiiat sm.ee fhe title of fhe petitioner by way of traiisfer was disputed, th.e Biutation was not effected ui his naxae. Since a dispute in relation to the. title of the petitioner was raised, tiie conceined revenzie autliorities were right iii procedure io. not mutating tlie iiaiae ofthe petitioner. I do not fiiid aay Ulegality ia tlie orders passed by tlie revenue autliorities. The petition has no nierits. The same is Uable to be aiid is accordmgly dismissed. However, siiice fhe petitioner claims his right on the basis oftiUe traiisfeiTed by a registered sale deed, he would be at Mberty to approach appropriate Civil Court for declaration ofhis riglits. There shaU be no orders as to costs. §d/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge /Rao/