< RUSffiSJ^ ;< ^ IW;-^^':l'HII<^'':Q %f^^UCT^^^^.^^J^S.iL&Sl :<^^^ ^ ^ftIT p1S£TTlQa^o» '!„__L^/^09- pBrjTIG^TBR '^ fP^Lr<^<r-7\ 4- ?.-•" ^jo^F0 ^<5@? A<.^""" Balsa^ha Patet a.geQ.- about 70 yea.rs gon o f Jhagj.xbo^" resld@i fe of vlllage W.rtoo Tabsil Ta atpar EfistriGt Bllaspar (C»G.)« 'VSRSUS :HBSPONBmTS ^V<TV) ^ '^ ^) ^ l* -Bnt^ Pushpa Bai ^if@ of BaghLinafeh Shaxma aged. 35 years 9 resld^i t- o f vlll a.ge N1 rtoo Tahsil T-aMiatpur Qist£lct %laspur (C.G.). 2» Sfc ate o £ G-ihatti sgarh Through s Cbllec-fcorr EAlaspur (G.G.5« WBIT pETTT?ON_UNISgR-a,RTT<:l>^ :22'71GP'THE GONS'riTUTICS? OW IN:B3:X' A HtGH GOURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT 1 Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice PrashantKumar Mishra PETITtONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (2271 No. 5^4 / 2009 Baisakhu Patel Versus Smt Pushpa Bai and anottier. '^ Shri Ram Kumar Twari, couns^ for the p^kmer. Shri Shashank Thatcur, Gouns^!ter re®pom3witNO.C Shri R.R. Stnha. Panet Lawyer forthe State/responctent No.2. PETITION UNDER ARTIGLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (27.09.2010) \' The petitioner daims to tww purchased the property from Sahodara Bai and has moved an applteatton for mutation of his name on the subject lands. (2) The wspondent No.1 Pushpa Ba\ daims to haiw received the property in parUtion in pureuance to the oreter of partition made ^By the Tahsildar, Ganiyari on 18-07-2005. The said respondent moved ofajectton on <he murtation of the name of the petitionw on whfch the AddMonal Coltoctor, Bitaspur passed the order Annexure P/7 on 2401-2008 dfewUngthe petitioner herein to approach th®Cwil Court for a decision wtth respectto her ^Ue over the subaect tand. The Additional Coltoctor, by the said ordw. set- asrele the onter passed by the Sub Dwisional OfRcw <R«venue)Koto on 23» 03-2007 by which the petitioner's appeal ¥vasaltowed anclAhe was pwmittod '^ to move an applteation for mytatton of his name. I 1 %. ^^^ -K' -2,- (3) The oreter passed by the Addttional CoUector ha»been aWrmed by the Board of Revenue in te wder dated 22nd Ai^^. ^p^ ^rSiaiiCBB)1.; v/hfch is impi^ned in this wrtt petition. (4) From Ihe ortters passed by the Addftk»nalColtoctor and ttw Btwt^ Revenue it would appear that there is serious dfeputes oftitteterWwsi.^ct land between the petitionwand respondent Pushpa Bai. tt islrito tewtiaitm proceedings uncter Articte 227 of the Constitirtion of tndia writ Court cannot decide titte of one or the other party on the dteputed tand. (5) The instant pefltion under Artfcte 227 of ttie Constftutton of IncBa is ttierefore sans sutetaiwe which <^wv«sto be and fe horeby dtemfewd; The p^itfoner, if he may so desire, prefer a Chnt Suft to estsdrf'Esh hteiUe in theCwilCourt. —. . . -. • - . • i:/ ' ' SdA. :,1.-' • •| Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge