?ig^*E>E( ^ Kitfs:&>'i SSNSjLE: W^W c / n. j QO IN THE HIGH COURT^F CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 24^3 / 2006 PETITIONER: ^ Siyaram, S/o Itwari Ram Sahu, R/o Village Lafinkala, Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: .^ &o--- ^'V' 9, ^y^^ y6°..s>-"" ^&®' / 1. Jhaduram, ..-\""^ S/o Late Tulsiram Sahu, L ..•••"','^^'...'f R/o Village Lafinkala, ••'^•'"..-"'" Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) ,'2. State ofChhattisgarh, Through Tehsildar Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, C.G. •••' ^.••' *'*'\ (r:**" .i ^:^y^ -^'''^••'" >•••'' ,.-"'rt51ft>^-'" ,^-<a...--' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. \ ^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mi^ira Wrtt Petition No. 244S of 200B. Petitioner Resoondents Versus Siyaram Jhaduram & another Shri. Satendra Sahu. counsel forthe petitioner. Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for respondent No. 1. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No 2 1) 2V 3) 4) Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitidion of India. ORAL ORDER (08.05.2011} Challenge has been made to the order passed by the Boardof Revenue on 22-022006 (Annexure-P/1), wrtiich in tum, was preferred to challenge the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Raipur on 15.04 2002. The dispute between the parties relates to partition of agricultural land situated at village Bhoorka & Lafinkala, Tehsil and District Mahasamund On pemsal of the impugned order, it would appear that the petitioner has raised a plea that the respondent No. 1 Jhaduram has not been seen in this world for last seven years and has attained civil desth. Dispute is about the share of parties in the land in question. To arrive at a decision regarding civil death of respondent No 1 or for that matter about the right and entitlement of a particular member regarding their title over the subject land can only be ^E^^saag^ >a"*^Bi'sy&t^ •^-a.-ssaMslswrK-.:: ^iS'a-^ ^sf-''' 1 a i ''R.S'*' ./ v*^,f resolved by the jurisdictional civil Court in a duly constituted suit preferred by any of the party and this Court, in its jurisdictkm under Article 227 of the Constitutton of India is not entitled to deckle the disputed question oftitle and fecls. 5) Legal positton with regard to the jurisdiction oftheHigh Court under Article 227 ofthe ConstitutJon of Irella has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of CeSna Coe/ho Pere&a fllfej and athers vs. Ulhas Mahatofeshwa' Kho/fcsr and offims, (2010) 1 SCC 217. Relevant paragraphsSO, 31 and 32 ofthe report are extracted hereunder: "30. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v- Laxrrsbai R Tarta, (1975) 1 SCC 858 this Couft hekl: (SCC p. 865, para 7) "7- ... The 1-Sgh Court cannot in guise of exetdang fts jurisdicffon under Aftide 227 convert ffisetf mto a court of appeal when the leglslature has not confe/red a right of appeal and made the (tecfefon of the subordinate court ortribunal final on facfe." 31. In State v. Navjot Sandhu. (2003) 6 SCC 641 • 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545 ffiis Court expiained the power of the High Court under ArScle 227(ftus: (SCCpp. 656-57, para 28) "28. Thus the law fe Itiat AiWe 227 of e ConsStufion of India gives the HighCourt the pcwer of superintendence over all courts and tribunals thmughout the territories m relafion to which it eyerctses jurisdiction. This jurisdicfton cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Le^slature. The superwsoiy juriscfcffon evtends to keepng the suborcSnate trabunate within the lirruts of thelr authonty and to see'mg that they obey the law. The pawers underArVcte 227 are wicte and can be used, to meef the ends of JusSce. They can be usetf to intertere even mfh an Interiocutory order. Howewer the power ^^ ^ ^•S^y'"'^ "."•»^.^'' .•'^' uncfer Arffcle 227 ts a discreffonary power and it is <S cult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source ofpower, when the High Court ItseV does not OT terms puiport to exeivise any such cSscfelionary power It is sefSed law that thls power of juiSaal supenntenctence, underAfffde 227, mu^ be exerased sparingly and only to keep subordtnate courts and tribunals within the bounds of Vhear auttiority and not to comec? mere ermrs. Further, where the statute bans the exerdse of rewstonal pawers it woufaf require veiy eycepdonaf circumstences to warrant mterference under Arffde 227 of the Consfftution of India sntce the power of superfntendence w/as nof meant to drcumventstaMory law. It is setUed law at ttie yurasdfcffon under A/fcte 227 coufd not be eyercised 'as the cloak ofanappeal in disguKe'." 32. The afofesakl two deciaons and few ather ded^ons, namely, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, (19 ) 4 SCC 447, State of Maharashtra v. Mlltnd. (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117 and Ranjeet Slngh v. Ravi Prakash. (2004) 3SCC 682 came to be conadered by fftfs Court m Shamshad Ahmad v. Ttefr RaJ Ba^s/, f2008) 9 SCC 1 and ttiis Court hefef: fTffa^ Rajcase. SCC ^o- 10-11, para 38) "38. Though pawers of a Hyh Court under Artides 226 ancf 227 are very wde and extenave over aff courts ancf tribunals throughout ffie territories In relation to which It exercisesjuiisdk:tion. such pawers must be exeicised w'lth'm the llmlts aflaw. The power fe supervisory in nature. The Hlgh Court does not act as a court of appeaf or a court of enw. It can nelther review nor reappreciafe, nor rewe^gh the evidence upon which detemHnation of a suborcSnate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based w to correct ermrs of fact or even of law and to subsGtute its own dedsion for that of the inferior court or tr9>unal. The powers are required to be exerclsed most sparingly ancf on/y m appmpriate cases in order to keep the sufaordrnate courts and infsrior tribunals wtthin the limifs oflaw" 6) Having examined the matter on the anvil and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court find that the present is not g fit case for interference under Artfcle 227 of the Constitution of India, however, since the issue pertains to right andentitlement ofthe parties regarding partttion of agricultural land,ftls direded that the petitioner, if so desires, may prefer the suft within a period of three months to claim any such right, which may be available to him under the law and during the said period of three months status-quo wtth respect to revenue records, as it exits today shatl be maintained by brth the parties- 7) It is made clearthatthe period of three months isthe outer limit and the petitioner woukl be at titerty to make any prayer befwe the civil Court for grant of interim relief/ temporary injunctimi and if any such prayer is made, the same shall be considered and dedded on its own merit without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in this order. The above order of status quo shall remain operative onty for a period of three months. 8) Shri S.C. Verma, leamed counsel for respondent No- 1 furtter . submfts that in-tact a civil sult was already filed and has been decided and principle of resJudteate may oper^e against the petitioner. If that be so, in any suit preferred by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 woukl be entitled to raise issue of res ^-SS^^. /•''^ ^ judicata and the observations made in this order shall not be construed to permit the petitioner to file another suft dehors the principte of resjuiScata. 9) With the aforesaid observations, the instart peHtion stands dismissed. Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge