7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH W.P. (227) N0. ^(cAS> /2009 B©1 PETITIONER WN -P^Q^TMO^ : 1.' Pinki (presently Smt. Pinki Sisodiya, W/o. Shri Rajendra Sisodiya aged about 33 years, D/o. Shri Shankarlal, Permanent R/o. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, ..l^^\-^~~ Presently residing at Priyadarshani ^•^ Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District ^^%:-"" '^^° Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ^. ^^ ^W^tfw HO^. Through: Alok Kumar Dagla, aged About 28 years, S/o. Shri Shankar Lal, R/o. Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Jashji, Aged about 80 years, S/o. Lalji, R/o. Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Through: Smt. Pushpa, W/o. Shankar Lal, aged about 53 years, Power of Attorney Holder of Jashji, R/o. Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh W^. WPJ^(yw». "y3 Qi^tP A^ 3. Suresh Kumar, Aged about 37 years, S/o. Shankar Lal, Permanent R/o. Village Laillunga, District Raigarh, presently residing at Priyadarshani- Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS v:.^ W^-WP^aw^Mov 1. Board of Revenue, Through: The President, Boardof Revenue, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh t^-' 2. Smt. Janki Bai, Aged about (not known to the petitioner) Wd./o. Late Mahataru, R/o. VJllageAmeri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh p, ^K^^PPMGWT^O^^ ^ N^-^p^cy^NT MQ' 3. Smt. Phool Bai, Aged about (not known to the petitioner), Wd./o. Late Ghasiram, R/o. Village Ameri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District . Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Mohan Singh, Aged about (not known to the petitioner) S/o. Ramji, R/o. Deepika, Tahsil & D'istrict Korba, Chhattisgarh IT PETTTTnN IINDER ARTICLE22: FONSTITUTTnN OF INDIA )FTHE S7 ^e ^s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BU-ASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.4093 of 2009 Petitioners versus Respondents Pinki (presently Smt. Pinki Sisodiya W/o Shri Rajendra Sisodiya and others Board of Revenue and others Present; Shri S.C.S. Nair, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. None for respondent No.4. Wrlipetition under Articte 227 of the Constitution of Indi^ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14th February, 2011) Learned counsei appearing for the parties are heard finally. 2. The petrtioners have called in question the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 25-5-2009 (Annexure P-1) allowing the review petition preferred by respondents No.2 to 4. Petitioner Suresh Kumar purchased an area of land admeasuring 0.50 acre from Khasra No.480 and 0.10 acre from Khasra No.479/1 situated at Village Ameri, Patwari Halka No.26, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur by registered sale-deed dated 8-6-1994. The Naib- Tahsildar ordered for mutation of his name vide order dated 28-9- 2004. Ghasiram, the late husband of respondent Phool Bai moved an application before Naib-Tahsildar alleging that Mahetaru, late husband of Janki Bai is illiterate and Ghasiram has never executed ^ any power of attorney in favour of Mahetaru neither any partition has ^ .<•—' .^^r"v'^ <•"' ^"^^'% ..^ '^ '".^ :-^ ^^ K k.-.'^I^ ;; »^»w taken place between them. Vide his order dated 7-10-2004, the. Naib-Tahsildar recalled his earlier order dated 28-9-2004 directing that names of Mahetaru and Ghasiram be again recorded. Appeal preferred by the petitioner Suresh Kumar was dismissed on 28-4- 2006. Further appeal preferred by the petitioner Suresh Kumar before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division was kept in abeyance on the ground that a civil suit is already pending between the parties and continuance of two parallel proceedings for the same piece of land is not appropriate. 3. The petitioner Suresh Kumar thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by order dated 23-4-2009 (Annexure P-13) directing mutation of name of Suresh Kumar in the revenue records. Against the said order dated 23-4- 2009, review petition was preferred by respondents Smt. Janki Bai, Smt. PhoolBai and Mohan Singh. 4. Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Janki Bai and respondent No.3 Phool Bai would submit that they had not preferred any review petition before the Board of Revenue. Statement to this effect has been made in paragraph 8 of the return. Respondent No.4 has not entered appearance in this writ petition in spite of issuance of notice by newspaper publication. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be apparent that a civil suit is pending consideration before the civil Court as has been observed by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 23-4-2009 and in fact it is on this basis the '^ .^.. ' ,;'-":-^ -: <• '^. '^. \ 'A"'? .A- ^.-•^^^ /\. '/ -^' Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, vide his order dated 16-9-2008, has kept the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that continuance of two parallel proceedings, one before the revenue Court and other before the civil Court, is not appropriate. Even otherwise, there are serious disputed questions of fact including allegation of commission of fraud etc. by the parties against each other. All these questions cannot be gone into and adjudicated in this petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. 6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the parties shall appear and contest the civil suit, which is, as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, pending before the civil Court, for redressal of their grievances and may also make appropriate application for grant of interim relief/temporary injunction in the manner permissible in law. It is further directed that status quo with regard to possession of the subject land shall be maintained for a period of six weeks from today and during this period the contesting parties may move before the civil Court for appropriate interim relief. It is made clear that after expiry of six weeks from today, the order of status quo shall cease to have its effect. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal