c^\°^- ,^".- / IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(ART227).N02>^^ /09 PETITIONER ^A^on-A^ju'Q.w-^^ o".V.. .^' ^..^\VF ,.y.^ ^y !^-""" v/s VISHNUKANT S/0 SHRI VYAS NARAYAN AGRAWAL, AGE 60 YRS, R/0 NEAR SfflV TALKIES, OPP. MAMA-BAR^NJA TALAB, BILASPUR, TAH & DISTT. BILASPUR (C.G.) RESPONDENTS (1) ^ N^^ c.^-^ ^'^^' ^Mi" ~~^\^ ,J (2) (3) (4) "(5) ^(6) AMRITLAL, S/0 SHRI VYAS NARAYAN AGRAWAL, AGE 65 YRS, R/0 BALODA, TAHSIL JANJGIR, DISTT. JANJGIR- CHAMPA (C.G.^^c^^. SHANKARLAL, S/0 RAMKmSHAN AGRAWAL (ADOPTED SON) AGE 45 YRS, R/0 NEAR GANDHI PUTLA, JUNA BILASPUR, BILASPUR (C.G.)/^h-A^<&^^-2- ^r BOARD OF REVENUE, BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH. COLLECTOR, JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) TAHSILDAR, JANJGIR-CHAMPA (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT -yEEf ^I^KTI^, ^nl^^Ko, (®l<ni<H^< ^^.iAp...C.^;y.....3-o.!.a..., ^ITWIT^^IF^ * ^l ^?T '^R^ .(lG8l^^) ^i^N? ^?^T^RT^ i^iW^ter^?^r 1.B. Htrn'Me Shri Justice N.K. Agalnyal 9.06.2009 Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate fort^ Shri Ratnesh Kumar AgrawaJj, [o. 1. Shri AS Kachhwaha, Depuf; Itate/respondent No. 4 to 6. luly Heard on admission. The instant appeal is dife(| ^8.05.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed ^evenue Case No. RN/06/R/A6/34 ^referred by the respondent No. 1 w< t(ie parties shalt be free to proceed w |ompetent revenue court after decisii b. 335/98 and fhereby the Revenu^ Board afifirmed the order of ffahsildar passed on 29.08.2000, whe: After having heard leamed co ajnd having perused the reeord, I am ^Nta^f'HTR^ff "^'fe^'^N^R ^•^feH3^ (petitioner. Advocate for the pespond^nt Advocate General for the ^ed against the order dated by tiie Board of ReveBue ia 1/2007, whereby, the revjtsion sallowed with a direetion that ith mutation proceedings m the >ti ofthe High Court in appeal i|eby mutation were stayed. i|insel appearing for the parties, |ofthe considered opinion that ^W<^l<t< ^PT^UK^ <l«l-IKJli^—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. ^^^T"^-^ ^TI^l^i''^Fi 'i^i^i^r^R?^ Sahii 'N^dl ^»NJ<#»' 7ST r<ii^i<n^, ©Ti1<-ili<o,[c<diyll< ^G>:^..,...,&>..1-3, ^Voo0! ^I^?T 'T^T.( ^<3sf^<51s?) I^iW^^^l^l the petition has no merit.] any illegality or irregularity, lea<| It is well settled principle | its supervisory jurisdietion und^ India, should rej&am itselffrom the Court below, except in sue| irregularity or jurisdictional en|or is writ laig@ on tfae fece ofthe record, which is not in the presei(it case. The petition is liable to However, as perthe submissaon is free to apply afresh for mutati' Accordingly, the petition i(s dismissed. ^W^N ^TO^ ^ fe^t ^f^gK ^-ri^H^I^T Shri Ali Asgar failed t@ point out ing to manifest injustice. oflaw thatlliis Court, in exercise of r Article 227 ofthe Coastitiition of interfering with the order passed by 1 cases where perversity, illegality, be and is acccirdingly dismlssed. of Shri Asgar, the First Appeal fried by the petitioner before the Hig|h Court has already been dismissod as withdrawn vide order dated ^2.06.2009, therefwe, the petitioiiw 'n in accordaace with law. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^WCQ<li ^^T ^"U^ <M-li^lM—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000.