HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 5003 of 2008 1. Babu Lal Agrawai aged 49 vears of Shr Mange Ram Agrawa, resident of Handi Chouka, Raigarh, Tahsii & District Raigarh (CG) . 2. Shri Gouri ankarji, Deomulti, troh the ebait Babul La! grawal, S!o. Shri ! Sh hug Sh Aa Mange Lai Agrawaia, Sevekunia Handi Chouka, Raigarh, Tahsi & District Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhwisarh thtg the Coiieator, Raigarh, Tahsi! & istrict Raigarh (CG). 2. Registrar Pubiic Trust. 3 n. nu ii 4. Nazui Omcer, Raigarh, Tahsil Distric Raigar (CG). 5. Shti Krisa Kumar pta, aged 60 years S/o. Late Shri Bhagiathi Lal Gupta Peace, , . The Board of Revenue of Chhamsgarh through the Chaiima Beard of Revee. Principai Office at Biiaspur, Tahsii 8: District Baspur (CG). & t h Road, Raigarh Tahsii 8: District Raigarh (CG). (Writ etition under Article 2261227 of the Constitution of indie) SB: Hon’bl Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. MD. Shara. counseiforthe petitioner. m Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Qenerai for the State. ORAL oRDER (Passed on this 10‘" dayor eptember, 2003) S The title of the petition scheduie land ha en held uder the s be n ownership of the respondent No.5 by the District Court and th same has e been affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur as well as by the Supreme Court. On the basis of the titie, the respondent No.5 made an application for mutation of revenue records in his name. l PETITIONERS i al RESPONDENTS g ouh D hn Gu r . P e i g :iwlf w Ekrvl-a’aw’ y G f 2) Learned counsel appeating for the petitioner submits that the decision on title of the iand in, dispute was ex parte as the petitioner has no opportunity to put~forwaid his case. 2) Be that as it may, the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1 978 passed by the District Court in respect of the title of the petition schedule land has traveled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the finding recorded by the District Judge that die petition schedule land belongs to the respondent No.5. In that event, the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been given notice prior to passing an order of mutation is not relevant. lf the petitioner is not title hoider, there is no question of giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the order dated 5-10-2006 (Annexure Pf‘l) passed by the Board of Revenue is unexceptional and does not warrant any interference. 4) e This Court, in exercise of i3 supervisory jurisdicuon under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, should refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed by the court beiow, except in such cases where perversity, tliegaiity, irreguiarity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 5) The mutation of records does not create any right in favour of any parw. in the event, the petitioner seeks to question to the title, the petitioner may take recourse to the statutory forum that may be available to him under the provisions of law, if so advised. 6) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed in limine, SdL , .Satish K. Agnihotri , . Judge Raiu a: ' af““r.