HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2422 of 2003 Petilioner: Versus Respondents 1. Smt. 6ita Devi, W/o Ram Charan, ageil about 66 years, R/o 5atti9udi Chowk, Raigaph, Tehsil & District; Rai9arh (€.©.). The Bocrd of Revenue, ChhattiS9tu+i, Bitaspur (C.6.). Suresh Kumar Agrawal. S/o Santlal Agrciuai, R/o Kotra Road, Raigarh, TehsiK&bistt. ftaigarh (C.6.). POST FOR ORDER ON /7A SEPTEMBER, 2003 Sd/- '•C. Bhadoo Judge HI6H COURTOF JUMCATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTIS6ARH Writ Petition No. 2422 of 2003 Petitioner: Smt. 6ita Devi, W/o Rom Charw), cged about 66 yeors, R/o Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh, TehsilA District; Rai9arh(C.&.). Versw Respondents 1. The Boord of Revenue, Chhcrttisgorh, Bilaspur (C.6.). 2. SureshKumor Agrcnwal. S/o Santlal A9rawal, R/o Kotra Rocd. Raigarh, Tehsil & bistt. Raigarh (C.6.). Present: Shri Prashant Mishra Advocate For the petitioner Before: Hon'ble Sln-i L.C. Bhadoo, J. ORDBR (Passed on /7/^. September, 2003) 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by which she has challenged the order dated 15th July 2003, passed by the Bou-d of Revenue, Chhattisgorh at Bilaspur in appeal No. 367/A-6/2002-2003. 2. The petitioner's petition is that respondent No.2 purchdsed her agricultural lond byasde deed dated 13-11-91 beartng KhtsraNos. 56/4, 56/5 and 56/6, area 0.009 hectare and 0.004 hectore from Khasra No. 56/7, totat area was 0090 hectare. However, the. /'-:""«'ii"8j!SS^%^SNiSSi; I 2 respondent No.2 by fraud and in a fraudulent manner entered the Khasra No. 58/9, area of 0.037 hecfare in the said sale deed which was not sold to the respondent No.2 and thereafter respondent No.2 got his name mutated in the mutation proceedings before Tehsildor. The Tehsildar mutated the name of Jhe respondent No.2 without following ttie procedure under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and without informirg the petitioner ogainst which an appeal bearing No. 31/A-6/2002-2003 was filed in the year 2003 and the Sub &ivisional Officer altowed the appeal and set-aside the mutation which was recorded by the Tehsildar, 3. On appeal by respondent No.2 before the Board of Revenue bearirg No. 367/A-6/2002-2003, the Boa-d of Revenue vide impugned order dated 15 July 2003 allowed the appeal and set- aside the order of the S.&.O. on the ground that the appeal before the S.D.O., ftevenue, Raigarh was time borred as the same wos filed after-11 years of the order of Tehsildar dated 29-2-92. 4. I have heard the lewned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned coureel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue is not correct as the delay was explained by the petitioner before the S.t5.0. and the S.&.O. was satisfied that the mutation proceedings were effected in the absence of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order of the Boord of Revenue is liable to be set-aside which iscontrory to law. 6. I have perused the impugned order as well as the order- of the S.D.O. It is not disputed that the sdtedeed in question w<s executed on 13 November 1991 and the mutation proceedin9S were taken up in the year 1992 ond the nane of respondent No.2 was mutated on 29-2-92. A perusal of the order reveals that a notice was issued to the petitibner for 29-2-92 by the Patwari to appear before the Tehsildar and the said date was fixed for ceFtification of the mutation proceedings. This notice was sent to the petitioner on 24-2-92 and it wos entered at S. N0.18 in the register. A general notiee regarding mutation was also issued by an advertisement ond the same was advertised on 13-2-92 in whid 3 8. objections were imited up to 28-2-92. At page 8 the learned Board of Revenue hcs observed that both these proceedings were within the knowfedge of the petitioner and the dote for certification i.e. 29-2-92 was also infonned to the petitioner and it has further been observed that there is nothii^ on record which shows that the petitioner made to enquires afcout the certification proceedings dated 29-2-92. Moreover, both •these proceedings i.e. the notice which was sent to the petitioner and the advertisement bears the signatures of the petitioner. there'fore, the petitioner wos having the knowledge ctoout this niutation proceedings. Apart from that the S.&.0. pa^ed a diversion order No. 80/A-2/1998-99 dated 22-6-99. The petitioner has not raised any objection in that proceeding also. Morawer, the petitioner moved an apptication before the Collector, Raigarh on 15-11-2000 in which she has mentioned about the certificotion of the mutation proceedings. The S.0.0. made an enquiry and in that connection the S.&.O. gwe on intimation to the petitioner on 21-11-2000 which was made known to the petitioner on l5-ll-2(X)0. A civil suit was filed by the petitioner on 16-11-2000 in the Civil Court in which she has mentioned d»out the sde deed. Therefore, the petitioner was very much within the knowlec^e and the Bocrd of Revenue reached to the conclusion thot the petitioner hce not been able to explain the delay of each day in filing the appeal before the S.D.O., Revenue and the ground shown by the petitioner that she come to know through her son, when her son was enquiring into some other matters, her son came to know obout thia fact and through him she came to know on 4-1-2003 cannot be believed. In view of the obove facts, when the petitioner wos within the knowledge about the mutation proceedings since beginning that was effected after issuing an advertisement aid personal notice to the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in the year 2000 and diversion proceedings were crfso effected by the S.b.O. in the year* 1999, therefore, the cpnclusion of the Board of Revenue that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the S.D.Q, S 1 ^ aSpnf '- oopBqg '3'rl -/PS ! •psssiiusip si 4.1 puo psssiiusip aq 04. a|qoi| si uoi+i+sd 31)4. 'A|6u!puo33y •4.M3UI f.0 pioAsp si auios ai|+ puo w^oj. +noi)4.1M si uoi+i+ad aiu. •oi •Dipuj j.ouo!+n4.!4suo3 31)4. j.o ^23/922 S8|3!+jy ^spun ^jno^ sit^ ^ aau3j8j.>i3+U! joj, 3S03 ai|4. +no a>|oiu 04. 3|qo ua3q 4.ou soii uauoi+i+ad 91)4. ijans so 'anuaAsy j.o pi40og 31)4. ui pa^saA 81)0 tp!i|jw uoipipsunr 3i|4. puoAsq ^ap^o Auo passod puo A||o6a||i uoipipsiunr /uo pssia^sxa 4.ou SDI) anuaAag ^.o pjoog 91)4. '3joj,8^3t(4. 's+uaiunBjo ^.o ssjnoa ai|4. Sui^ip paujiupo J8uoi4.i4.ad ai|4. Mf. |3suno9 psujoa) at)4. il3jt|M fjnoy jiAi^ 341. woj.aq Suipusd si t|9ii(M puo ajo+osi) ^.eo'O oajo '6/8S "ON Djsotj^ j.o +3adssj ui pssp 3|os 31)4. psuDa 04. ^jno^ ^wy 3t|4. wo^sq 4.ins |jAi9 o pa|i^. Apoajp sot| jauoi4.i4.ad atx. 'JSAOSJO^ •6 '+ay U014B4.11UI-1 ai|+ J.° S uo!4^aS J-o +!^3uaq 3t|+ 4.36 04. japjo ui /D|ap ai|4. up|dx3 o+ 9|qo 4.ou SDM uauoi4.i4.ad SL|+ so sno3UOii.t3 joup63||! J3t|+!su si pjoog anusAay ai^j,o uoisnpuoa 81)4. puo pwjoq aiui4, SDM anusAsy laites: