HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU§ WRIT PETITION U/A 227 NO. 87gl2011 PETITIONER Ramkunwar, Wd / o Reshamlal Chandra Aged about 65 years, R/o Village Chhapora Tehsil Malkhaurada, ,District Janjgir Champa, C.G. (Non —Applicant No. 1). (District Janjgir Champa, C.G. is not mentioned in cause title of order dated 19/11/2010). RESPONDENTS la. Banshilal S/o Patwari aged about 65 years 1.b. Babulal S/o Patwari Aged about 63 years. — VERSUS Both Respondent No. la 85 lb are R/o Village Mahuldeep, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, C.G. (Legal Heir of Applicant). (Name of Respondent No. la 8a lb are not mentioned in order dated 19/11/2010 but they are legal representative of Late Ganeshibai after her death) Manglu S/o Bhagau Rawat, aged 7O years R/o Village Bhatmahul, Tehsil Malkhaurada, District Janjgir Champa, C.G. (Non-Applicant No. 2) ’Singharin Wd/o Kaliram aged 8O years, 68 Durgaprasad S/o Kaliram aged years. 5. Ramprasad S/o Kaliram aged 66 years Shivprasad S/o Kaliram aged 64 years. Respondents No. 3 to 6 are R/o Village Bhatmahul, Tehsil Malkhaurada, District Janjgir Champa, C.G. (Non-Applicants No. 3 to 6) (Addresses of Respondents No. 3 to 6 are not mentior'ed in cause title of order dated 19/ 1 1/2010 85 1ncomplete address of Respondent No 3 is mentioned) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB Hon’ble Mr T P Sharma, J ) Presentz— Shn Vimlesh Bajpa1 Advocate for the petitioner Shri Suresh Tandon Advocate for the respondents No 2 3 4 8t 6 None for the respondent Nos 1a 8r, 1b although served None for the respondent No 5 whom serv1ce has not been served ._, 2’“ g 5 ‘ ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 11/07/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of thc Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 19/ 11/2010 passed, by Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur in Revision ‘Case No. 463/A—23/2007- O8. 2. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Suresh Tandon, ‘l’xtifdvocate for the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 85 6 are heard; ~- At the outset, learned counsel for the‘petitioner submits that Court below has decided the revision by the order impugned and at the time of such order, § petitioner Ganeshi Bai was not alive, after her death her legal representatives i.e. respondents No. la 8L 1b have already filed the petition for bringing the legal i representatives of Ganeshi Bai on record on 31/3/2009 but same has been overlooked by the Revenue Court. 4.. Order impugned and copy of other applications including application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Ganeshi Bai on record dated 31/3/2009 perused. After death of Ganeshi Bai, no effective hearing or effective order was legally {i possible for or against revisioner without impleading her legal representatives on record while passing the order impugned is perse illegal. Conseqeuntly, petition e ‘- is allowed. Order dated 19/11/2010 passed by Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilasrxur in Revision Case No. 463/A—23/2007—08‘ is hereby set-aside. Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur is directed to .hear and decide the application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Ganeshi Bai and 1 thereafter after hearing the parties passed the order afresh. Parties are directed, .to appear before the Commissioner Bilaspur Division Bilaspur for further proceedings of the case on 10/8/201 1. 6. I.A. No. 01 stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- , T.P. Sharma Judge