/ G^' PETITIONER IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAJTISGARH AT BILASPUR I:vy^7^7/ w. p.^KrO. ^T- 6^ /2009-^& | o Firangi Lal, aged about 60 years, S/o. Pran Nath Sahu, Occupation- Farmer, R/o Village Khorsi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist-Janjgir Chainpa (C.G.) VERSUS ^ ^••^..-•;. ^2':^-^fe^ .......^^ ^,......-^'' RESPONOENTS /,, /<:!. /^l^ n. ^^..^>^^y^^)2. ^-ppc^h^- l 3. -^ '} ftrf>Pt^ ./- 4. ^ ^U^- , 5. '-..^ Bahrta S/o Pran Nath Sahu, R/o Village iQiorsi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist-Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Dwarika, S/o Pran Nath Sahu, R/o Village Khorsi, Tahsil Paingarh, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Anjani Kumar Sahu S/0 Firtu Sahu, R/0 ViUage Deori, Post Office Khorsi, TahsU Paingarh, Dist-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Sunderlal Sahu S/0 Firtu Sahu, R/0 VUlage Deori, Post Qffice Khorsi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Arjun Kumar Sahu S/0 Firtu Sahu, R/0 . Vmage Deori, Post Office Khorsi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist- J.aa^gir Champa (C.G.) ^ i ^pp-e)/^^ ^ 7 ^rppt^iAh ^ ^p^4^'/9. ^L Kapil Nath Sahu S/0 Firtu Sahu, R/0 Vmage Deori, Post Office Khorsi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Bhim Sahu S/0 Firtu Sahu, R/0 Village Deori, Post Office Khorsi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Nakul Sahu S/0 Firtu Sahu, R/0 Village Deori, Post Office Khorsi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist-Janj'gir Champa (C.G.) Rajkumar S/o Hansram Sahu, R/0 Village Deori, Post Office Khorsi, Tahsil Paingarh, Dist-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ^-^p^M^^ ^ 10. Nirmal Kumar S/0 Chhedilal Sahu ^_ R/0 Vmage Deori, Post Office Khorsi, Tahsil Paingarh, Dist- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ^fpeM^^ ••t ;",. -..-'' 11. Ram Kunwar W/O Ranmath Sahu, Through Special Power of Attorney, Ramnath Sahu, R/0 Village Deori, Post Office Khorsi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist-Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22fr^27^)FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227} No. 5666/2010 !i - PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Firangi Lal Versus Bahrta and others Appearance: Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (1.10.2010) Challenge in this writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the petitioner's revision petition which was filed to challenge the appellate order passed by the Additional Collector on 6/02/2008. (2) The parties to the petition have conflicting claims regarding their title on the subject property admeasurmg 5.44 acres. The Revenue Inspector passed an order on 29/11/1988 directing mutation of the name of respondent No.l along with the petitioner in the revenue records. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that his signatiires ^¥ereforged and the RI had no jurisdiction to partition the land. This r' ^ss "®i9^ . -2^ appeal by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer was preferred on 22/04/2006. (3) The Sub Divisional OfFicer allowed the petitioner's appeal on 12/07/2006. This order of Sub Divisional OfFicer was challenged before the Additional Collector, by the respondents No.3 to 11 vvho have purchased the land from respondent No.l after the order of mutation passed by the Revenue Inspector in the year 1988. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal and the order passed by the Sub Divisional OfFicer was set aside. Petitioner's revision has been rejected by the Board ofRevenue. (4) On perusal ofthe documents annexed with the writ petition, it would appear that there is serious dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 regarding the title over the subject property. Afiter the order passed by the RI in the year 1988, the respondent No.l has alienated the lands in favour of respondents No.3 to 1 1 and thus xights of the other parties have also been created in the subject land. The revenue court has no jurisdiction to set aside the sale deed executed by the respondent No.l in favour ofrespondents No.3 to 11. (5) Since there appears to be serious dispute about the title on the subject land, the instant petition under article 227 ofthe Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to redress his grievances. His exclusive title on the land and the validity ofthe sale- /^eeds can be examined by the jurisdictional civil court. 1'° ^ ^' (6) The petitioner, ifhe is so advised, may prefer a suit which shall be decided in accordance with law. (7) With this obsei-vation, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge