T~ ,ri \4> C^ K^. siyi'xi R ..^^. ^ .g i ^; ;1^ ^^, l^ ^MCM .^l^'^j ^[ -i- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) N0. ( Lf/0 /2011. ^P\,A ^•''^ "'y ^^ .^" ^' ^^ \ RESPONDENTS u 2: 3.' PETITIONERS : Chinmay Builders Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Through its Managing Director, Prakash Davara, S/o Shri Magan Lal Davara, aged about 61 years, r/o Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil/Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Versus Smt. Seeta Bai, Wd/o late Shri Pyarelal Dhimar, Shiv Kumar, S/o late Shri Pyarelal Dhimar, Raju, S/o late Shri Pyarelat s^s^ 4. CNand) S/o late Shri Pyarelal Dhimar, 5. Laxminarayan, S/o late Shri Pyarelal Dhimar, Note: All residents of Near Sheetla Mandir, Dhimarpara, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION_QF INDIA l^ S.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHA.TTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 1410 of2011 PETITIONERS : Chinmay Builders Pvt. Ltd. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Smt. Seeta Bai & others CWRIT PETITION IJNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITOTIONQF_BN[DIA) fSB: Hoii'We Mr. N.K. Asarwa!. J.) Present : Shri Ratan Piisty, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed 01105.04.2011) 1. The instant petition is directed against the orders dated 21.06.2010 and 14.12.2010, passed in Revision No. RN/14/R/A-6/68/2010 and in Review Petition No. RW/14/R-A/6/50/2010 respectively, whereby and whereunder respondent's revision was allowed and review preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Tehsildar, Raipur, passed the order of mutation in petitioner's favour. The SDO, vide order dated 24.02.2009 dismissed the respondent's appeal. Second appeal preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner was also dismissed. Respondent's revision preferred before the Board of Revenue was allowed on the ground that mutation order is passed without noticing the respondent, against which petitioner's review was also dismissed, 3. Only submission made by Shri Pusty is that when the revision was allowed by the Board ofRevenue on the groimd that mutation order dated 19.02.1994 passed by the Tehsild.ar, Raipur, is bad for want of \^^ v./,',;:-:^ v 1. . '-...--;""- '.:) ;,' s' <T^ % notice to the respondents then the Board of R-evenue ought to have remitted back the matter to the Tehsildar for decidmg the petitioner's mutation application afresh after hearing the respondents, and thus, tiie order suffers from jiirisdictional illegality. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and having pemsed the order impugned, in the considered opinion ofthis court, while allowing the respondent's revision, the Board of Revenue ought to have remitted back the matter to the Tehsildar for deciding petitioner's mutation application afi-esh after noticing respondents. In view of above, petition is disposed of. The matter is remitted back to the Tehsildar, Raipur, for deciding the petitioner"s mutation application afresh, Parties are directed to appear before the Tehsildar, Raipur, on 25.04.2011 and thereafter Tehsildar shal! decide the matter in Sal-iu accordance with law on its own merit. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge