HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.4827 of 2004 PETITIONER: Shankar Singh, S/o Tulsa Ram, aged about 48 years, Caste" Gond, Occupation Cultivator, Resident of Namna, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) —Versus- RESPONDENTS: 1. Dasmatiya, D/o Lagan Say, W/o Nanka Ram, aged about 45 years, Occupation Housewife, R/o village Raghunathpur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) Dularo, D/o Lagan Say, W/o Ramlal, aged about 40 years, R/o village Namna, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) 2. 3. Additional Tahsildar, Premnagar, District Surguja (CG) Sub Divisional Officer, Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (CG) Present: ShriAshok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. i Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. ORAL ORDER (30—6-201 0) . By the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order of Annexure~Pl4 passed by the Board of Revenue. . The petitioner applied for mutation of his name over the disputed land before Tehsildar on the basis of will executed by Dil Kunwar after the death of her husband Lagan Sai and respondent No.3 passed the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner, however, on appeal preferred by respondents No.1 and 2, daughters of Lagan Sai and Dil Kunwar, the Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Additional Tehsildar (Annexure—P/3). Second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein has been further dismissed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order. . Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below did not consider that in Gond community (ST), the daughters do not inherit the property of their father and as such, they were not the necessary party in mutatio‘n proceedings initiated by the petitioner before Tehsildar. f The Sub Divisional ,‘Officer has wrongly held that since the will deed is not a registered document ahd, therefore, it is suspicious under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The will is not a document of which registration is compuisory as under Section 18 (e) of the Act, registration of wills is optional. He further submitted that revision has been dismissed and both the courts below Ignored the fact that appeai greferred by respondents No 1 and 2 was barred by lImltation and sepaatren application for condonatron of delay was filed, however, Without decrding the above application, appeal Itself was allowed. From perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision with an observation that the petitioner did not file original will before the Tehsildar. Proclamation issued by the Tehsildar was defective. Witnesses of will haVe not deposed about the will. They have only stated that Dil Kunwar has given the land to Shankar Singh. Tehsildar did not issue notice to the daughters of Dil Kunwar though Shankar Singh in his deposition had clearly stated that Dil Kunwar had two daughters. Tehsildar ought to have issued notice to both the daughters under the provisions of the Act. Other two attesting witnesses of the will have not been examined and no reason has been assigned for their non-examination. The will has not been proved in aordance with Section 63-A, ‘B, and C of the lndian Succession Act. After going through the impugned order and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, i am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is strictly in accordance with law. There is no illegality infirmity, or jurisdictional error committed in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition is accordingly dismisse. d l cc .