(j/ l Q/ $‘mgi@ U :a, gm‘mE? _’ \ i -\ _ \ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) No. 95’ OF 2009 / 1. Naresh @ Ghanshyam, S/o Ruha Sahu, aged about 38 years, PETITIONER Al‘mn HpfLacunf 5 2. I Kamla Ba], W/o Ruha Sahu, aged about 57 years, Petitioner No. 1 and 2 both are R/o Village Jhulna, Patwari Halka' No. 27, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Neerabai, D/o Ruharam Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Mohtara, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Durpat Bai, W/o Janak Sahu, aged about not known, R/o Village— Jhulna, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg(C.G.) RESPONDENTS R )¢( 2\ A/a'ean’ff Kunwariya Bai, W/o Bhagwat Sahu, “waged about not known, R/o Village Tamri, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Santosh, S/o Takhat Sahu, aged about not known, Durg, D/o Takhat Sahu, aged about not known, Nankusiya, S/o Takhat Sahu, aged about not known, pp .t . @ Tulsi Bai, D/o Takhat Sahu, aged about not known, Jethiya, S/o Takhat Sahu, aged about not known, 10. Takhatram, S/o Meghuram Sahu, aged about not known, AH R/o Village-Gunjera, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) The Additional Collector, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ' The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The Naib Tahsildar, Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WN INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH : 3ILASPUR WRQT PETWGN {227'} N055”; O? 2Q§§ P$T5T30NER$ Na{e$h @ Ghanshyam & Qihers RE:SPoNzaEm‘gé m w—‘ Versus Durpa’t Bai Others & {Warit Petition under Article 227 0f the Constituiien m‘ énd§a) S§ng§e Benth : Hon‘b!e Shfi Prashant Kama: Mishra, J. sm'i Same»; S. Agg'awal, Advaaate fer the yespenden‘t Ne.1 8; 2. , $hr§ RR. Sinha.‘ Panei Lawyer forthe State. QRDER (GRAL) {Pagsad Vn this 15‘“ day of February, 2m 1) Heafd ieamed counse! for the parties. Shri Sahu, Eeérned counsei appearing for the petitioners, wouid submit ‘ toat groceedings for recording the names of respondents No.1 & 2, both daughters of Gangamm & Bhagwati Baa and the names of the ;‘esponden€s No.3 to 8E who are the §egai he‘n’s of anothe! daughter of Gangaram & Bhagwati Bai nameiy; Budhwarén Bai, was initiated by the concemect Naib Tahsitdar and entties ’wei'e made m the mutation registet on 137-!34-1 §9?’, a3 is evident ftom Annexure Pl2 on the sttength of a eartition deed dated 274334997, Shti Sahu wouid furthet submit that when the tecotds were summoned by the appeiiate .Coui’t of the Sub-Bivisionai Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, it was found that the said deed 0t peititiori is not avaiiabie in the record of Naib Tahsiidar. Shti Semi wouid atso submit that the present ie net a case of undisputed pettitioii, therefore. the Naib Tahsiidar couid net have made entries on the strength of the partition deed without ieeui'ng ptociamation or without issuing notices to other members of the family who may have the interested parties artc/iwhoee‘namee have already been recorded in the i'evenue records. Per contra. $hri Agrawai, iearned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2. woutd submit that. in fact. Bhagwati Bai was a co—shater in the property aionr; with the petitioners Naresh & Kamta Bai. The resoondents No.1 & 2. being the daughters of Bhagwati Bai. are otherwise aiso entttied to Succeed to the property after her death. Similariy, the respondents No.3 to 81ers also entitied to succeed to the property on the sttength of the entitiement being the iegat heirsot Vanother daughter oi“ Bhagwati Bat namely; Budhwartn Bat. Thus, Present :— $hrt FP. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. \ \ \ \ ' a accaminq its me éeaméd cmm$eL ihe deed a? partiiion wa5 not the wig ba$i$ f0? renorciing of ihe’w names Be that as it mayi admitkediy, the comemed Naib Tahs§§dar did not issue any pmmamation mar noiaces we¥e iSsued to the pemons whose names were already recarded m the revenue recorde. Thus, prime facie, this $01M §s e'f the opimor} the: intefested parties should have been neticed ‘xay the Nam Taheikiar befcre makingfcowecting é‘ne ewmes in the f€VEWu€ fQCOTdE‘ m View {3f “Toregoing mad without cemmeming anything 0n the mem of the righte m entiiHement of any of the parties abcut the inciueionicewection of me aames in the revenue reconis, it is directed that the cancemed Naib Tahsi‘tlar shail take Lie the mafter affesh to decade the righ?5 ai‘ad ent§iiement 0f the reepondem‘s fer inclusien of weir rwames in the mvenue fecerde aftei' affoming propef opportuniiy m hearing to me eereons whose mmes were ahead}; entered 'm fhe fevenue recerds. T353 ‘ihe matter is taken up tor Considetation by the Naib Tahsitder and decide the same in aucordance with taw, tite status of revettue entries sneti remain as it is ae it exists toe‘ay. The Naib Tansider snail conduct the enquiw and pass fteeit enter, in acmrdance with iew and on ite own ment. Within a period 0t three mentne from the date of presen‘tatien of certified copy of this enter. The earties shaii appear before the Neib ‘r'eiteiieier an, it“ Maren 24311 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed oi. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge gewn