!N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271_Ng OF 200 PETITIONER NSM- Pi'Pl-IC'/lMr ^A ^^&" ^v^w ^^^' ...<^^ ^^" t / Krishna Sakha Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Raipur, registered under Sahkari Samiti Adhiniyam 1960 bearing Regn.No.D.R/R.P.R/91/Sl- 82), having registered office at Dangania, Raipur through its president Shri Mahesh ^qin, s/o late Shri Tarachand Jaig:'<>?t§r^nyrt?>f Indrawati Colony, Raipur, Tahsil 85 Distt. Raipur (C.G). VERSUS RESPONDENT ftppLXc. ftp-r 1. Dhurandhar Builders and Developers ^ through Partner Keshav Dhurandar, aged about 57 years, s/o Late Shri Mahendra Dhurandhar, resident of Sundarnagar, Raipur, Tahshil 85 Distt. Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 2. Tahshildar, Raipur, TahshU and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2>. Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 Addl. Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, 5 Chhattisgarh, 5. Board of Revenue, Circuit Court Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh Suresh Singh Thakur S/o. Shri Vinod Singh Thakiir Resident of Brahman Para Raipur Tah. SE Dist. Raipur - (Chhattisgarh) '?, Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Adyocate ^ Resident of Aminpara Purani Basti Raipur (Chhattisgarh) . -!"F "L4 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v^ r-- HiG'rLCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 805/2009 •^ Krishna Sakha Salikari Grih Nirraaa Samiti, Raipur Dhuraiidar Builders aiid Developers & Others PETITIONER Versus Krisliiia Sakha Salikaii Giih Ninnail Samiti, Raipur Dhi.u'suldar Builders aiid Developers & Others Post. of proiiouncement ofjudginent aiid orders on g /08/2009. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge I: \^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N.K. AGARWAL WJ*Ji(0. 805/2009 PETITIOiNBRS Versus Krishna Sakha Salikari Griti Nirman Samiti, Raipur Dhui'aildar Builders and Developers & Others W.P.WO. 806/2003 PETITIONERS Versws Krishna Saklia Salikai-i Giih Nu-man Samiti, Raipur Dhuraildar Buflders and Developers & Ofhers WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearaace: Shri Sajijay K.Agrawalwifh. Shri Sudip Agrawal, counsel for the petiuoner. Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel for respondent No. l. ShriA.S.KachIiawaha, Dy. A.G. forthe State. ( g .08.2009) The uistant petitions beirig identical ia nature, ai'e beiiig disposed of by ttiis order. The iastant petitions ai'e beiug dii'ected agaiust the order dated 21.11.2008 (Aiuiexure P/1) passed by the Board of Reveiiue, Circuit Colu-t, Raipur iu Revenue Revision No. R.N./l4/R-A-6/378/2008 & iii Revenue Revision No. R.N./14/R.A-6/377/2008 (Dhm-andbai- Builders suid Developers Vs. Krishna Sakha Sahkari Gnh Ntnnan Samiti, Raipur) whereby the revision prefen'ed by the respondent No. 1 is allowed aiid the oi-der passed by fhe Talisildar dated u 20.11.2006 was inaiatained by rejecting the order passed by the two appeUate Courts. Brief facts of fhe case are tbat fhe respondent No. 1 filed aii applicadon. for lautation witb regard to ]and bearing Khasra No. 173/2001 area 0.303 bectai'es & 173/3 ai-ea 0.385 hectares based ou purchase by registered sale deed dated 2.8.2005 & 29.6.2005 from Mehtrin Bai & Others and Bhookaa respectively. Tbe petitioner hcTein filed ari objecdon before fhe Tahsildar oil tlie ground that the petidoner had eatered iato agreeruent of sale with the original laad owner Manua S/o. Mukund Saliu vide agi^eeiaent dated 24.12.1982 aad pursuant to lh.at, ai'e iu possession. The second objection raised by the peti.i.ioner is tliat the petitioner has uistituted a civit suit seekiag relief and specific Perfoi-mance of Contt'act agaiiist Mehtiia Bai & Others aiid fherefore till flie decision of tlie civil suit the lautation proceediags sbould have been kept pending. The Talisildar vide order dated 20.11.2006 dismissed the objection prefen'ed by the petitioner and passed the order of inutatioa ia favoui' of tlie respondents. The petitioner went in appeal before die Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur whicll was allowed by tlie Sub Divisional Officer holdiag that as ttie civil suit filed by the petinouer is pendiag tberefore the Talisildar should Iiave waited for the decisidn of the Civil Court before passing the order aad set aside fhe order of tlie Tahsildai'. The respondent went in Second Appeal before the Additional Collector, Raipur who also vide order dated 31.3.2008 afiirmed the order passed by the SDO in first Appeal against tbat the revision was preferred by the respondent wbich was allowed by fhe Board of.Revenue. In betweea, tlie petitioner uioved au application before the CivQ Coiirt ia Civil Suit No. 161-A/2007 mider Section 94 read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of tbe Code of Civil Procedure seeking relief of teiaporaiy iiijunction for restraitliag fhe laadowners froiu executuig the sale of suit land to any oflierpeison. The same was dismisscd by the Givi] Court vide order dated 6.10.2007 holdiag fiiat Melitria Bai and Others are legally entitled to sell tlieir properly and tiie petitioner has no ri^ht to iaterfere in their rigbt of sale. Counsel for the petitioner has ralsed the foUowing ;rouja.ds to assail fbe order passed by flie Board of Revenue: i) Under Section 110 (4) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 the Tabsildar ought to have passed the oi-der of niutatioji after holdiag fuU enquiry, but the Tahsildar only after considering tlie preliminaiy objection of the petitioner decided tlie niutation proceeding which is bad. ii) tbe dispule as to title of the suit land is pending before the Civfl Court, the Tahsildar ought to Iiave stayed the inutation proceedings aad waited for tbe decision of the Civil Court and therefore fhe order passed by the Board of Revenue by affinauig the order of Tahsildai' is iUegal aiid without jurisdiction aad deserves to be set aside. Per conti-a, Shri Rataii Pusty, couasel for fhe respondent subinits that fhe petitioaer is neither recorcled owner ofthe suif land nor is claiming ownership based on aay existing title but ifs claim is based on atleged agreeiaent of sale and it is setUed law that agreeinent to yale gives no tirie aiid for this he refers to Section 54 of the Traiisfer of Property Act. The Tafasfldar tliere.tbre afier rejectiag tlie preluninary objection of tiie petitioner had rightly passed the order of mutation. He further subinits that as tlie civil suit is pending iu which reUef of teinporaiy tajuaction can be c.1aimed and ta fact was clauned and' rejected by the civil Court aad therefoi'e the petitioner has no right to raise the objectioa during the niutation proceedm.gs. I have cafefully gone througli the orier impugned aad luaterial placed on record. : ^l, It is settled law fhat fhe agreenient to sale does not coitfer any title. Under Mutation rule 32, order cannot be passed on tlie basis of possession. Adinittedly the civil court declined to interfere in fhe aUeged sale by wliich the respondent had purchased the suit laad froia Mebtria Bai & Ofhers and Uierefore fhe Talisildar as weU as fhe Board of Revenue has not coiamitted any etror ia passuig the order impugued. Once the civil suit is pending it is withia the right of tiie petitioner to seek appropriate relief froxa the civfl Court but he caanot say that the order passed by the Tahsildar is wifhout jurisdicuon inerely on fhe basis of agreement to sale aUeged to be executed in petitioner's favour. Therefore, ia fhe opuuon of fhis Court the Board of Revenue has not coinnutted any illegaUty/iafirmity in passing the order impugned so as to revoke tbe extt'a arbitrary jurisdiction of tbis Coun under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Suguna It is weU settled prmciple of lavv fhat this Court, in exercise of its supervisoiy jiirisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of ludia, should refi'ain itself from interferiag wifh the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where peiversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdicdonal eiTor is wiit lai'ge on fhe face of fhe record, vvhicli is not in fhe present case. TIie petitious ai-e liable to be aad are hereby disiaissed. No order asto costs. ' ____—- - Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge