fe!!^-^^ Kf7~' Ks!s ft HIQH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.6578 of 2007 PETITIONERS: NON-APPLICANT 1. 2. 3. RtSPONDENTS: (APPLSCANT) -Versus- 1 2. 3. Shiv Kumar, Son of Shri Ledgaram Sahu; Ramkumar, son of Shri Ledgaram Sahu; Dilip Kumar, Son of Shri Ledgaram Sahu; Ali resident of Village Kathiya, Tahsil Bsr!a, District Durg (CG) Mehatrin. Bai, wife of Late Shri Ramanand Sahu; Smt. Lata Bai, D/o iate Shri Ramanand Sahu; Smt. SaviSa Bsi, D/'o !ate Shri Ramanand Sahu: Ail resident of Viliage Kathiya, Poiice Station Bemetara, Tahsii ierla, District Durg (CG) The Tahsildar, Beria, District r^i.*^- Uui^ Durg (CG) 5. The Additional Coilector, Bemetara, District Durg (G.G) . Pressnt: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsei for the petltioners. Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. iinale Sench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. ORALORDER (5-7-2010) 1. Learned counsel for the petltioners submitted that ths petitioners filed an application under Sections 109 and 110 ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') before Tehsiidar, Berla for mutating their names in the revenue records in oiace of late Ramanand Sahu on the basis of registered wil! executed by him. Tehsildar invited objections from the interested parties. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed an objection. Tehsiidar passed an order for further enquiry and fixed the case for recording the ^- .1. •H \,f evidence of the part'es. Respondents No.1 to 3 fiied a revision before the Additional Coliector, Bemetara, however, the revision was dismissed. They further preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order of the Coliector and the Board of Revenue by the impugned order ailowed the revision preferred by the respondents and directed the Tehsiidar for mutating the names of respondents No.1 to 3 in piace of iate Ramanand Sahu. 2. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that they have raised various objections to the maintainabi!ity of the writ petition. They have stated that under Section 110 of the Code a dufy is cast upon Patwari to enter into register prescribed for the purpose of every acquisition of right reported to him under Section 109 of the Code. Accordingly, on 16-8-2005, Patwari mentioned regarding the death of Ramanand and on the basis of Right of Inheritance, the names of the respondents were proposed to be substituted vide Annexure R-1-3/2-A & 2-8. The impugned order of Annexure-P/8 has been passed by the Board of Revsnue on the ground that the application of the petitioners for succession on the basis of will has been dismissed by a competent Civii Court and, therefore, mutation ^roceedings based on Vasiyatnama couid not be allowed to continue, as succession certificate issued by the Collector in favour of respondents has not been challenged in any Court and the same is binding on the petitioners. 3. Heard iearned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. Indisputably, the petitioners herein appiied for mutation under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code. Learned Tehsildar considered the proposal of Ha!ka Patwari under Section 110 of the Code for mutatina the names of the respondents in place of late Ramanand on the ground of inheritance and c'iaim of the oetitioners herem for mutatina their nsmes on the jaasis of ^ .^ registered will allegedly executed by Ramanand and fixed the matter for evidence. The order passed by Tehsildar was further confirmed by the Collector, who rejected the revision application of the respondents, however, the Board of Revenue has set aside the orders passed by the Tehsidlar as well as the Collector and directed to mutate the names of respondents without any proper enquiry wlth respect to the rival claims of the'parties. Thus the same cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 15-10-2007 (Annexure-P/8) passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside. However, the Tehsildar shall proceed with enquiry to adjudicate the rival claim of mutation of the respective parties over the disputed iand and the enquiry shall be conducted after affording proper opportunityto the parties. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge