(i) IN THE IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHA JUDICATURE AT ‘ .BILASPUR w.P..C.-L§—:g-$f2oo9 Petitioner Non-Applicant /' Panchoodas aged abéut 55 years ,\ S/o Sheodas Sahu , cultivator R/o Village Sahaspur P>C>N0. 28 R.I.c./Tah.Tah. Saja,Dist.Durg Versus Respondent Premdas aged about 45 years S/o Parasram Sahu cultivator Resident of Village Sahaspur,Tah.Saja Dist.Durg (C.G. 2. Motidas aged about 50 years S/o Sheodas Sahu Cultivator R/o Village Sahaspur Tah. Saja, Dist‘Durg (C‘G.) /‘ 3. Smt.Samund Bai aged about 53 years (W/o Sagar Sahu)Daughter of Sheodas, R/o Village Musuwadih,Tah.Saja, Dist.- Durg (C,G.) 4. Smt.Geetabai aged about 48 years (wife of Bahari),daughter of Sheodas VRJO ,,.... t Vinage Dongi-Tarai, T'ah.Saja\Smt_. 2 theagagal a' Smt. Motimbai (Since deceased) Through her Representative z (A) Sukhchand aged about 22 years son of Lakhan /(B) Ku.Durga ,aged about 15 years D/o Lakhan minor— Through her guardian — Ad-Litem—Brother Sukhchand Both Resident of village Lalpur, Tah. Sahaspur , Lahora, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 6. Srnt. Bisantinbai Widow of Sheodas R/o Village Sahaspur Tah. Saja,Dist.Durg(C.G.) Smt. Phoolbai aged about 32 years Daughter of Bhaiyaram R/o village Majgaon Tah Berla, Dist Durg (C.G.). H LQ) Smt. smochanibai aged30years,dgagh‘ér of Bhaiyaxam R/O Village Pendaxi, Tah Saja,Dist.Durg(C.G.) / 9. SmtBasamba'i aged about 28 years, Daughter of Bhairam,R/o Village Bhendri,TahBerlaDist—Durg. 10. S/o Gaukaran Bhaiyaram aged R/o about village 26 yeaxs Bhendri, cultivator Tah.Ber1a,Dist.Durg.(C.G.) years cultivator S/o / 11. Dani aged about 24 Dist. Bhaiyaram R/o village Badera, Durg(C.G.) W WRIT PETITION ONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLES OF INDIA 226/227 OF THE _ 1 § HIGH £QURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR Q Sinqle Bench: Han’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (Cg) N0.1634 of 2009 Panchoodas VEYSUS Premdas and others ORDER Post for K ~01 ~201 0 Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra ‘ Judge M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (C4 940.1634 of 2009 Petitioner Panchoodas Versus Resgondents Premdas and others Present: Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.1. None appears for other respondents, though served. V Writ Petition under Article 226i227 of the Constitution of india ORDER (Passed on lFWanuary, 201 0) The petitioner herein has chalienged the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Biiaspur on 9-9-2008 (Annexure P—1) in Revision Revenue Case No.29?IA-6/2004‘05 affirming the order passed by the Additional Collector, Bemetara on 26—12-2000 (Annexure P-6). 2. The facts o/f this case, in short, are that respondent No1 Premdas moved an application before the Tahsildar for recording his name iointiy along with the petitioner on iand bearing Khasra No.660 new Khasra No.1978 on the ground that Khasra No.660 area 0.957 hectare belonged to his father Parasram and his uncle Sheodas, father fr of the present petitioner and they were using this iand after partition as Kothar. Parasram was in possession of 0.28 hectare bearing Khasra. No.660/2 and Sheodas was in possession of i029 hectare bearing Khasra No.6601’1. However, at the time of / A .. i r i r \ r i Q5 Bandobast, it was recorded in the name of the petitioner Panchoodas and other non-appticants in the revision revenue case, therefore, the petitioner made a prayer for recording his name in the revenue records by correction of the records. 3. The Tahsiidar, Saia, vide order dated 17—6-1997 (Annexure P-2), allowed the application filed by respondent No.1, Premdas,‘ which was subiected to appeal by the present petitioner before the Sub—Divisional Officer, in which the matter was remanded to the Taheildar for fresh enquiry. The Taheildar, Saia, after making due enquiry, again passed an order on 9-3-1999 (Annexure P-4) directing addition of the name of respondent No.1, Premdas in the revenue records. 4. The present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, who set aside the order of the Tahsildar and allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner Panchoodas vide order dated 14- 9—1999 {Annexure P-5). 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14~9—1 999, respondent No.1, Premdas preferred a second appeal before the Additional Collector, Bemetara, which was treatedi’as revision and was allowed vide order dated 2642-2000 (Annexure P—6) directing the subordinate revenue authority to correct the records and to include the name of Premdas along with Panchoodas on the land bearing Khasra No.1978. 6. Against the order passed by the Additional Collector, the present z petitioner preferred a revision before the Board cf Revenue, which was l of Revenue vide impugned I"! fags fdismissed by the Board Torder (Annexure P—t). gé 7. The learned Additional Collector as well as the learned Board of Revenue, by detailed and reasoned order and after perusal of the revenue records, have reached to the conclusion that the original Khasra No.660 was divided into Khasra No.660/1 and 660/2, which were later on renumbered as Khasra No.1978 and 1976, respectively and presently an area of 0.057 hectare of original Khasra No.680 has been entered as a whole in Khasra No.1978 in which respondent No.1, Premdas has also one half (1/2) share; The authorities have, therefore, passed the impugned order directing inclusion of the name of respondent No.1, Premdas on Khasra No.1978. 8. The Additional Collector has found, which has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue, that the land of new Khasra No.1976 has wrongly been included in Khasra No.1978. 9. tn the opinion. of this Court, the findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue are not perverse. There appears to be serious dispute between the parties as to the title, entitlement and-possession over the suit property as also/r/ega’rding‘the division of khasra number, inclusion or exclusion of a part of land in one or the other khasra number etc., which cannot be gone into in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though the petitioner has also mentioned Article ‘ l 226 of the Constitution of lndia in the memo of writ petition. l i t i HO. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in View of the Lprovision contained in proviso to section 5O of the Chhattisgarh Land t lRevenue Code, 1959, which bars a revision in a case where appeal ék “a, was maintainable and that 5n fact in the present case, an appeal should have been preferred in the Court of the Commissioner, therefore, the orders passed by the Additional Colleotor as well as by the Board of Revenue deserve to be set aside. 11. This ground of challenge has not been dealt'with either by the Additional Collector or by the Board of Revenue, therefore, it will be treated as if the said ground was never urged before the said revenue authorities. in view of the fact that the Board of Revenue is the highest revenue authority and the said authority has already dealt with the matter in revision, which was competent, this Court does not find the submission made by the counsel worth acceptance, more so, because the dispute is geing on for the last about 13 years and there are. disputed questions of fact involved in the matter. “l2. Fer at! the above said reasons, this Court does not find any error of such nature committed by the Additional Collector and the Board sf Revenue warranting interference under Article 226/or 227 of the Constitution of tndia. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no ord§yas to gosts' i/g/W/ Sdl- _ m r. rashant Kumar Mish ‘P Judge , . Gopal