M5» \JV IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) ‘PET'ITTIONER %’P4I c MIT ’BE La w VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1) \°/6;§9 0" V5 . §~ .77 p NoN APPLIc/m-r 2) 4v 93¢— <ow / gwéw W‘g WP227 N Santosh Pujari, S/o late B.L. Pujari, Aged about 56' yéars, R/o M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.) ‘ Board of Revenue, Raipur Division Through the Chairman, Raipur (C.G.) I The Collector, Collectorate Pansar, Raipur (C G ) 3) (,4) 5) Manohar AWL/CANT ‘Eaom ; / 6) Mancihai Sahiami, S/o late Pitamber Satnami, agedrabout 67 years, Presently Ro Ganj Pafé, Durg (C.G.) AWé/c/WT Qgww: Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur' (C.G.) Tahsildar, Raipur (C.G.) Satnami, S/o late Lalji Satnami, Aged' about 56 years, R/o Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) ; - 0/ .~ ( 3 ~ / PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND F ' CERTIORARI DIRECTIONS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS§A~RH AT B‘LASPUR Bench: Hon’bte Shri Justice P as an K ma Mish Writ Pefltion (227! N0. 5895 ! 2010 PETmONER Santosh Pujari Versus RESPONDENTS / )1 Shri Jitendia Pali, counsei for the petitioner. 3hr; RR. Sinha’, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ‘z WRt'I' PETTH¢N UNQER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTUU'HON OF ‘ INDIA ORAL ORDER (26.10.2010) Board of Revenue and others. The petitioner has called in queetion the orders passed by the Board ~ of Revenue on 13-10-2009, 08-02-2010 anti 26-07-2010, Annexure PM, P/2 and PIS, respectively. (2) By order Annexure Pf1, the Board of Revenue allowed the revision preferred by one Manohar satnaml, who had challenged the order passed by Sub Divisional Omcer (Revenue), Raipur on 3136-2009. in Annexure Pf2 the Board of Revenue rejected the petitioner‘s application for review of the earlier order dated 13-1 0-2009 (Annexure Pm. By Annexure PIS the Board of Revenue has directed the concerned Tahsildar to give effect to the Board V of Revenue’s order dated 13-1 @2009 (Armature Pm. (3) Admittediy, the present petitioner was not a party in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue at any stage of proceeding and his review petition was dismissed on this ground alone. r i (4) 0n heing confronted as to how the petitioner is interested in the matter the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time on the last date oi e a l W hearing and ha$ now referred to the ocument Annexure PM which i$ the d copy of Chakbandi Misal of the year 1942-43. ln the said document name cf the petitioner’s grand father is recorded. Except this document there is no other revenue recurd of recent origin in which petitioner‘e name is recorded as owner or Bhumiswami of the iand. (5) Learned counsei for the petitioner has vehementiy urged that the respondents No. 5 & 6 are trying to grab the property belonging to hie forefather by piaying fraud and concocting documenw. Referring to severai appiicatione and the averments made by the respondents No; 5 & 6 before revenue authorities teamed counsei would eubmit that name of respondent No. 5 could not have been recorded in the revenue records. [f/ (6) that name of me respondent No. 5 or $uhawan Bai through whom the respondent No.5 is claiming title was never recorded as Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 431. Be that as it may, since the petitioner was not a party before the Board of Revenue and there is no document before mis Court after 1943-44 in favour of the petitioner. this Court is not inctined to entertain this writ petition. Even‘otherwise the Sub Divisional Ofdcer had found that the land belongs to the Shte Government, thus, it is for the State Govemment to challenge the impugned order. Shri Jitendra Pali, leamed counset for the petitioner has also argued (7) Shri Paii, learned counsei for the petitioner would aiso submit that the petitioner has fried an application under Section 115 of C.G. Land Revenue : Code for recording his name and correction of revenue records with respect : to Khasra No. 431. This application was moved on 04-01 -2010. It is to be i r noted that the Board of Revenue had already passed the order in favour of vrespondent No. 5 on 13-10-2009, thus, on bare perusal it would appear that ~5— the said app§ication has been preferred by the petitioner as an after thought to carve out iocus standi to intervene in the matter. In the application dated 04-01~2010 Annexure Pf10 it is mentioned that the petitioner‘s forefather were ex-proprietor and were in possession of the subject land even before the ahoiition of proprietories rights under the ChhattisgarhAbolition of property Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act, 1950). Under the said Act the iands, tanks and ponds belonging to a proprietor were vested in the State Government under Section 5 thereof unless the said land or tank is saved under the orders passed by the ooncemed authority. There is nothing in the record of the Wit petition to indicate that the lands of Khasra No. 431 on which the petitioner is ciaiming his right was ever subjected to or was saved in favour of his forefather under the provisions contained in ’ the Act. 1950. (8) it is also submitted by Shri Paii that the WILL aliegedly executed by Suhawan Bai in favour of Manohar Satnami S/o Laiji ,Satnami nowhere mention that Khasra No. 431 is one of the property bequeathed and for this reason also his name could not be reoorded. V L The question regarding validity of the WILL and as to whether the partiouiar Khasra number was the subject matter of the WILL is again a disputed question for which extensive oral and other evidence wouid f be required. in any case at this stage of the proceeding the writ Court has no jurisdiction to enter into the disputed question of fact and title Kbetween the petitioner and the respondent No.5. \qg (9) In the opinion of this Court the petition invowes serious disputnd v questions of facE and titie between the patitioner and respondent No.5. therefore the peu‘u'on under Articte 227 of the Consmution of India isvnot appropriate remedy for the petitioner. More so. when the petitioner isnot H having any documenk of title of recent origin and that he is disputing the v right, title and interest of respondent No.5 on the suit property which was otherwise recorded as Government land before the order passed by the Board of Revenue. it is settled Iaw that writ Court has no‘jurisdiction to decide the question of titte or disputed questions of fact which can oniy be gone in to by a jurisdictional Civil Court in a property constituted Civil suit‘in ' accordance with law. This Court shell examine the correctness of the s impugned order when a challenge is made hy the State Government because the petitioner was not a party before the revenue Courts. (10) In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if he so desires, may prefer a duly constituted Civil Suit after impleading the sate Government which shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. ‘ 1 l 5di- V. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge / r