@ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 22 N0. 1883 2099 PETITIONER Smt. Tn‘veni Bai W/o Sadhram Samami aged about 50 yeam, R/o , village Sakn', I Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur KEG) Versus RESPNDENTS 1. Sadashiv S/o Matan Satnémi, - . R/o village Sakri, Tahsil 'T‘alz‘hafnnr' niQ‘H' Riloqnnr (r‘fH The Naib Tahsildag, Takhatpur, Distt. ' Bilaspur (CG) The Additional Bilaspur (CG) Board of Revenue Chhattisg‘arh, Bilaspur (CG), through the Chairman Collector, Shri Malay Bhadun‘, Advocate, for the petitioner: Shri J.A. Lohani, Adv. for the respondent No. 1. .Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Adv. for the State. s3: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.K.» AGAR‘WAL ORAL ORDER (22.7.2009) The instant petition Is directed against the order dated 2-12— 2008 paSSed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 47/A— ' 6/2003-04 village Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur whereby and Whereunder, the revision tiled b . the respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Board of Revenue and matadonv proceedings initiated by the petitioner has een dismissed. V 2. Brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the suit land has been purchased by the petitioner and Mohd. Haneef IV who is said to be husband of the petitioner in the name‘of Mohd. Haneef from respondent No. l by registered sale deed and thereafter they applied for its‘mutation by/filing an application under Section 109, 110 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code before Tehsildar, Which was dismissed for default and thereafter a fresh application was med in H O b which an bection has bee raised by the rese o. 1 ta as the earlior application has esn disisd ad prooding ore initiated by the pitioner or its restoration and, heore, econd application is barr by prinle o res—jdicaa. Sad applican waS turne do b the Tehsildar and he mtter was posted for hearing. t re ic l t jc n i foe B o of Against rejecion of objection, the respondent No. 1 preferd applation before the Additiona Collecor, which was also reeted on 17th Sept, 2003. Thereafter the respodent No. 1 prefeired revsion ber the oard f Revenue. The Board Revenue aiiowed the revisio iiled by he respondent No. 1 upon i fining that the appliéaon filed by the petitioner before the Tehilar as not maintainable on the principle of res-judicata. > 3. 4. Shri Bhaduri, learned counsei for the petitioner submits that as the earlier application iiled by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and, therefore, principles of res—judicata is no applicable and the order of the Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Shri Lohani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 although admits that the application filed by the petitioner is not barred by res—judicata but the petitioner has no locus standl to til an application for mutation because the land 1n question has been said to be purchased by way of registered sale deed from the respondent No. 1 1n the name of Mohdv Haneef and only Mohd. Haneef has right to file such application. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, n my considered opinion, the finding regarding question of res-judicata recorded by the Board ‘of Revenue is perverse and deserves to be set aside. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar to decide the application filed by the petitioner as well as by Mohd. oj n pondnt N ht b mse n no ocs w et f terf s ed cip f ut i tio d Wn y" t a n t ts d ti sd w t i Haneef by glvmgan ’Opportunity -to the r¢spond€nt No. 1 to raise abjections regarding maintainability of that application as far a- petitioner is concerned, and thereafter to decide the same in accordance with law. Sd/— NK Agrawal iii? ‘ Jude a s g (