1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (227) No. Qw§5 /2009 PETITIONERS S. S. Robinson (Correct name is AF. Robinson), aged about 81 years, S/o Saman Das (Correct name is Shri \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ 03"! r’ Robinson), ’ 2. D. John Gelord, aged about 80 years, [V S/o Saman Das (Correct name 1's D. ’ t\ Satyanandam), an“: 7&7 Q,- \. Both members of Bethesda Masihi {:9 Prarthna Bhawan, Link Road gilt 3y Bilaspur, Distt, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / RESPONDENTS Amrit Lal Kachwaha, aged about 40 years, S/o Itwari Kachwaha, R/o Opp. C.M.D. College, Link Road, / Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) J. Logan, aged about 83 years, S/o G. Logan , member ofBetahsada Masihi Prarthna Bhawan, Link Road Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) _/ @ HGHcpu T H T IsGARH s §IN§LE B$NCH : ' P T W.P L227) No 2738 of 2Q09 EETmONERS 3.5. Robinson and another. Versus RE§PONDENTS Amrit Lal Kachwaha and another. 0* WRH PETIT‘QN UNDERAETIG’bgziQZY 9F THE CON§THUTIOMQF ‘ Appearance: sbxi. Rw‘mdna #gameL meal.w km mmg. None for the respondents even I‘n the second cant ORAL ORDER r 10102/201 1) Following oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kwar Mishra. J. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 21.5t Mamie, 2mg, whereby the Board. ai Rawenue has W the Revision preferred by the respondent Nc.1 Amrit Lal Kachwaha and has directed that his name be mutated on the land bearing Khasra No.723/29t area 0.06 acre diverted as Sheet No. 7) Block No. 5, Plot No. 474. (2) Respondent Arnrit Lal ‘Kachwaha claims to have purchased the land from Surit Ram by registered sale-deed dated 30/08/1995 and thereafter he moved application for mutation of his name which was allowedr howeverJin the meanwhile the Sub DiVisional Officer (Revenue) passed the order in favour of Surlt Ram who was owner of a biqqer part of Khasra and in the said proceeding before the Sub Divisional Ofhcenthe /’ respondent No.1 was not made a eartv. ‘The order passed bv the Sub \ Divisional Officer directing the mutation of the name of Surit Ram was challenged bv Amrit Lai Kachwaha before the Additional Collector and his appeal was dismissed on 10/12/2007. The Board of Revenue has thereafter allowed the revision prefrred by Amrit l Kachwaha vide its order Annexure P/1 whih is under chalng thi writ petition. {3) Lea nse h etioner wou it that with respect to the ame piee of land earing Ksr o /29 a suit was preferred by Arit Lal aaha in the urt f Civil Judg lass lL Bilaspur for declaration of his title. The suit was ismissed on 29/09/2005 and thereafter first appea preferred the respondent No.1 has also been diagram rm as“ Awe, 2am in mat Appeal rm. mmm'r . Ha mum submit that once title f respondent No.1‘ se on sale—deed dated 30/08/1995) has been reiectd his prayer for mutation on the basis of me sale-deed is not only illegal but ma/afide sa . (4) This Curt ha perusthe ppellte iudqmnt and decree which is annexed as Annexure P/9. pgph 17 of the appellate iudqment findig has be recorded th Rp Naravan and others, including petitioners have purc he lan from Ravinclranath Bhoumik bv registed sale-deed ate 28//. Thust the claim of Amrit Lal Kachwaha on the basis of sale—deed dated 30/08/1%5 has been onsidere bxaning the same. vis-a-vis the saledeed in favour of the petitioners xete by Ravindranath Bhoumik on 28/1 2/1 979. (5) The Board of Revenue has also obseed that this order shall be governed bv the order passed bv the Hiqh Court in pending Second Appeal thus te learned Boad o ene ha also impliedlv accepted that the iudqment and decree passed bv the Civil Court would ultimatelv nd the parties. Thus once considering the iuddment and decree of the Civil Court. wherein claim of respondent No. has been dismissed, the Board of Revenue has committed material irrgularity and has passed a e La c lee in s rned coul for te ptis ld subm s c b haa N. 723 m Kchw Co o e C d l by o bad e) o s ed aa e ln araras 16 and n en at oo hased t d re dd 121979 cd vemi ecud rv , , h r f Rveu s ‘ ‘ bi ] 1 L e ,g.’ grossly illegal order by directing mutation jg the name of réspondent No,1 in the revenue record. The impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. Needless to say that ultimate decree of Civil Court would bind the parties) and the present matter only relates to mutation. V (6) No order as to costs. k Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ’ Y