1%3 Awe HIGH COURT OF LMHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wm Petition (227) No. 42,16 atmas PETITIONER : Rajendra Kumax, Son 0f Alia Jacobi aged about 36 years, re3ident of villaggJyotipara, Tikarkala, Tahisl Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (CG) at present residing of Quarter No. 4H, Zone 1, Street No. 2, Khursipar, Bhilainagar, District Durg (CG). VERSUS t—a . State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Ravenue Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Board of Revenue Chhatttsgarh Bxlaspur Dtstt Btlaspur (CG) 3. The Addmonal Collector, Pandra Road Dtstmt , B1laspur (LG) RESPONDENTS : 4. Tho Sub Dmswnal Officer Revenne, Govt. of Chhattisgarh Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattlsgarh 5. Ihon Jacob son of Hanuk, aged about 65 years re31dent of Kant: Nagar, Town Tahsrl and Drstrtct Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Eza Jacob, Daughter of Hanuk Jacob, aged about 62 yoars, resident of opposite Pani Tanki, Near High School Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, .Chhattisgarh. (WRII PI: 1T1ION UNDER ARI ICLB 227 Of THE CON§T1TUTEON OF INDIA) (SB Hon'ble Mr Satish K. Agrihotn, J,) Present : Shn M D Dhote Advocate’for the petitioner Shri Shashank Thakur Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No l to 4 None for the respondent No. 4 & 5 despite caveat. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4‘” day ofAngust, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. This is a case, wherein, the question of execution of will dated 18.1 l .92 is involved. 3. The petitioner made an application before the Tahsildar, Pendra Road for mutation of the lands under ownership of Smt. Sushila Bai- The ‘ Tahsildar, Pendra Road, on the basis of registered will dated 18.1 l .92, ‘ directed the mutation in the name of the petitioner by ordef dated 14.07.2003, on the grounds that no objwtion was raisad by any party. . Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 5 & 6 prefemed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, (for short 'thc SDO')o Pcndra Road, being appeal case No. 9/A-6/2003-04, Th6 SDO, Pendra Road, rejcated the appeal on 28.07.2006 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 & 6 preferred a review application before the SDO (Revenue), Pendra Road, which was allowed by order dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure P/3), holding that deceased Sushila Bai used to sign in the documents, but on. the registered will dated 18.1 1.92 there is a thumb impression of.Smt. Sushila Bai, and as such detailed scrutiny ofthe will is required. It was further observed that the dispute may be resolved by the Civii Court only. Being . aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Pendra Road. The Additional Collector, Pendra Road, by order 29.05.2007 (Annexure P/4), allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 14.05.2007, passed by the SDO in review application. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 5 & 6 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh. The Board of Revenue, after having considered all the facts, came to conclusion that there is irregularity in the will and as such the authenticity ofthe said will dated I 18.1 1 .92 can be established by the Civil Court alone. . Shri Dhote, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no suit is pending, as the suit filed before the Civil Judge Class II, Pendra r . . Road, for declaration, permanent and injunction possession was rejected on 30.06.2007 (Annexure P/6). 8. The Board of Revenue, whi}e dealing the ease, found that the application for setting aside the order dated 30.06.2007 has been dled . before the Civil Judge, Class II, and the same is pending consideration. The Board also found that there is irregularity in the will. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 06.05.2008, affirmed the order dated 14.05.2007, passed by the SDO, Pendra Road and allowed the appeal. The Board of Revenue observed as under : "mmtgawwwmmmmewwv eqsmrrmleuemefeamw event-seemram‘ ewewmwmmmawagq arm mam 14.07.2003 wmewdewm‘v’r Needewmmarmnmm W 14.05.2007 ewmmmwmw WWW%mmwwelmW memewememelew Wamemmwmmgqw Weieemeiawemé’tarmm 7W 29052007 WIRE W % W Wait W W,W$mwmmwmanei madamwwwmmm mwewwamfaemmmmm‘el wmmamwmmweuw memmmmmtw‘rmm ad e: mm W warm $ m e Q‘q‘ mam WM? arr sneer W 29.05.2007 W m mar e new WWmWWmmmwMmm e l" 9. l have heard learned counsel for the parties;.peruse the pleadings and a documents appended thereto. It is evident that the said will dated . 18.1 l .92 is doubtful [and thg same cannot be‘ decided by. Revenue Court to ascertain genuineness ofthe said win. 10._Be that as it may, the matter can‘ be‘considered only 5y the Civil Court, as admitted that thej ,.tirst suit for declaration and injunction of possession, tiled by the respondent No. 5 & 6 was rejected. Further, it , is clearly recorded by the Board of Revenue that the applicatiOn for setting aside theorder dated 30.06.2007 has been filed before the Civil Judge, Class II, Pendra Raod, and the same is pending consideration before the Civil Court. The order is perfect, valid & unexceptionable, _ thus, no interference is warranted. 11.111 View ofthe foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. v.“ ~ 1 sw— H Satish K. AgnihOtl‘i i/_‘ .