~ INTHEHON'BI.EiaKlGOURTOFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. (Under Article 227) NQ. 1^1 72009 PETITIONER RespondentNo.l RESPONDENTS Applicant 1] ^^y ^ ^y^>^ w Janki Prasad, S/o. Shodhan Ram, Aged about 32 years, 'R/o. Village -Pidiya, Post Pet, P.S. & Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) VERSUS ,'.:.;- , Loor Sai, S/o. Budhra, R/o. Village Pidiya, Post Pet, P.S. & Tahsil Sitapiir, District Surguja (CG) Jaimangal Singh S/o. Larahi Ram, R/o. Village Pidiya, Post Pet, P.S. & Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) . : ...Respondent/respQndentno.3 Sfate of Chhattisgarh, tUrdugh: Upper Collector, Ambikapltr,. District Surguja(CG) , Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sitapur, District Surguja(C(j)-,..'.^e WRITPETrFIONUNDERARTICLE22^0FTHE CONSTITUIIOM^QFJNBIA .':.:':' .,:^'.1:1:':':^ <^^^>^r^ 2] >^^~yc§>''^S' -*'' 3] 4] fc ^ m^ mcH Wiit Petitwm (22f)No. 1701 of20W PETmONER RESPQNDBCTS •" Jarid Piasad 1KEKSUS Loor Sai & otfaers (WRIT TmaN UNHBK AKIICLS 227 OF •EHE CC»®TmjIIONOPINIMAl (SB: Htm'MeMr.N.K.ArarwatJ.Y Present s Sliri Maaoi Paianipe.Advoeate fertiiewtitioner. ShriURKosle, Aidvocatef(M'resp<MidentNo. 1. Neaie fiwre^ondeBfNo. ^ diough served., Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for tiie State: QRALORDER (Passedmi Ol.OTJWlt) 1. Witli tocoasent oftheparNes,1fae mattor tsheaTdjBaaMy. 2. The instant petitioh, filed under Artiele227 of Constftution oflndia calls ia question the legalttyaad i»opoety<rf"orderda!ted05^2^909, passed by the Boarf ofRevenne ia Revision Case 'No. RN/06/R-A-6- A/1186/2006. 3. SufflariBaiwaslheownerofthesgricultundlaQdbeanngKhaa-aNo. 15,Area 5.015 Hect. situated at Village Pyiya, 'Tefasil S|^»ur,Distt. Suiguja. She ^ied on22.06.2004. EartiCT she exeeuted two WiUs, AE .one dated 31.01.01 in fevour ofprtitioner whroh is registered WiII and pAer is dated 17.06.2003^ iie.Utwegtstered WiU ffi fimaar of respondeatNo. 1. After her death, the pett^cwer an a^Iicatioa fw muteition tesed 6a WiB <teed allegwi to be e?Eseuted by late Sualari Baiia Ms hi x^ & '^i^if-.' i.. • ';5ty<<;' 'Slil^' •"^^s^-"'' I'.ll.l.i-i. - 1 i / ! / \ 1 5. 6. .r'Wt:^.- fevow. The Naib Tehsil<jar, dlowed petitifflier's applfeatioa and diroeted fw ia place ofdeeeasedSumari Bai on tl»di%)Bted Imid. An appeal was iwefened iy the resiwndent No, 1 befeie thc SD0,, Si^m, iatCT-alia on tiie gnwind that deceased Siinari 9m tw executed hCT last WI1 <teed on 17.06.2003 m las &vow. The SIX^ aMowed respoadent's aipeal, set asade the ordCT of Na»I>' and direeted Ns n^e to in plaw ofpeftionw. petitioner preferred a revision before Ae Adidl, Colleetor, Amkiitopni'. The Ad«M. CoUwtot, AmiUJEapur, iset aade tite ©rd^iof800 aN afiBnned ttee orderofNaib TehsildM'. There-agwBstrospoad?nt%o. 1 jseferwd a revision before Ae 'Bwad of %w?eBue. The B^rd of Revenue set asMe die order of Addl. as wdl «s ^Nb >. Heacethis petition; I have faeaid the counsel a^earing fer the tartfes aad ger^d fli® wder impugned. A bwe perBsal of rocoid would sAow NA TehsNw Iwsi fte order in Ifae abseace of rwpond^t No. I. ffs&b Tebsiifiar haB oriy reeontod fte evidence WittA f^aid to first WiII that too in flie abseB ® of respondent No. 1. Tlie SDO, Addl. Cdlleetor and ti»e Botri of Revenue have passed Ae orders ofWifls ia qu^tion was requiced to ofevidewse to boft tfie parties and of ciQss wWauBssg each oithCTs' witaessres. te view of the ^ r> jurisdi,cti<»id illcgality GOI by all tiie reveaue authorfties is appareatoH the feee ofiwoid, and therefore, aB Ae OIR^S |»ssedly rewnue authoritfes are not sustainaMe ia law. 8. For tfae reasons hwetaabove, all tfae prders paased l>y Ihe reveaae authorities sae set aside and Ae mattar is reimtted bwk tolhe Naib Tehsildar, Mainpat, for passifflg ordars on mwrtwn appliGsti^ui. filed by Ae petitioner rfter directiag fte p®titionerto add T^pcmdent No. t as a party in Ifae mutoticm %pKGSti<a aaril aftw teewdmg evideaeeofbothlfaepartie&maeeordaBcewittlaw. - ThepetttioaiswcordinglyaIlowed.Nowderastoe%ts. ^^.A-' Niti.NBtj "N- SfRWKsff Satal