THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASHUR. WRIT ' PETITION , vm 1271»; {gt/No. gH9? I OF zoos / ’\ k PETITIONER _K€w? WW ' Village- SPONDENT RE , Jamjuda, x Padumlochan Sahu S/o Tej Kumar Sahu Aged about 36 years, R/o Jamjuda Tahsil—Pithaura, District Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS o Raghuram, 1. Tejkumar Sahu S/ aged about 54 years, R/o Village Tahsil— ' Pithaura, District—Mahasamund C.G. 2. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) , Through— The Secretary, Bilaspur (ca) 3. The Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.) 4. The Sub—Divisional Officer, Mahasamund (C.G.) District- 5. The Additionél TahSildax Pithaura, Mahasamund (C.G .) 7 OF THE «\yx WRIT CONSTITUTION PETITION OF UNDER. INDIA ARTICLE FOR ISSUE 22 OF AN NATURE OF MANDAMUSI CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION l ORDER APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE \ I IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. is x \ wg , ,73' . w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ’ Shri Rajesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri hiendu Pandya, counsel or respondent No. l. Shri Saneev Agrawal, PL for respondents No.3 to 5. ORAL ORDER (8.1 1 .2010) With the oonsent of leamed counsel for‘the parties the matter is finally disposed of. (2) The dispute inolved in the present writ petition is as to wther petitioners being the illegitate son of respondent No.1 would be entitled to succeed to the property. (3) From the order impugned; it would appear that when the respondents initiated proceedings for mutation ofthe name of his son, daughter, sisters and wife on the disputed land, the petitioner also initiated proceedings for mutation of his name. In proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate recorded a hnding that the ' petitioner is the illegitimate child of respondent No.1 and on this basis the petitioner initiated action for mutation of his name on the ancestral land in possession of his father respondent No.1. The S.B: Honble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 6497/2008 Sv f j WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v he im s PETITIONER Padumlochan Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS : Tejkumar Sahu and others Apgearance: (’Z/ Additional Tahsildar vide its order dated 31/10/2002 observed that the revenue court is not competent to decide the issue. The matter ultimately traveled to the board of revenue who, by the impugned order recorded a finding that the petitioner being the illegitimate son of respondent No.1 is not entitled to succeed to the property, in View of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act which applies only to the legitimate sons and daughters. (4) In the opinion of this court, the matter pertains to disputed question of title over the subject land and the same can only be decided by the jurisdictional civil court. (5) ’ Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying. on Jinia Keotin and others Vs. Knmar Sitaram Manjhi and others (2003) 1 SCC 730 would argue that petitioner is entitled to succeed to the property, however this court is not to record any hnding at this stage of the proceeding as it would be necessary for the petitioner to institute a duly constituted civil suit to establish his right and entitlement over the suit property being the illegitimate son of respondent No.1, however in the interest ofjustice it is directed that if the petititioner prefers a suit within a period of three months from today and moves an application for grant oftemporary injunction for interim protection of his right over the suit land, status quo in all respect, as prevailing ‘ on date Would be maintained by the parties till the civil court takes up the petitioner’s prayer for grant of temporary injunction or interim protection of his rights. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to m cease to operate. (6) With this observation, the instant Writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- , Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge v