HIGE COURT GF CHHATHSGARH AT BELASPUR WRIT PETITEON (2’27) No. i129 of'2IXJ9 PETITIONERS : 1. Goverdhan Prasad aiias Balmm Prasad‘, 30x1 0f Non-Amlicams Shri Nakchhad, Aged abraut 78 yrs. ‘2. Saiik Ram. sen of Shri Nakc§he¢ 3’ A ’Iohan La}. san of S112“: Nakcwmd. All are residents of village Madwani, Tahsi1 Mungeli a11d District Bilaspur {08.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Archana Shanna agac‘i 4i? wars, Wife of Shxi Smash Kumar Shanna, resident of Iviagafpam—road, opposite Deshhandhu Press, Bilaspur, TahSil and Disirisi Bilaspur (CG) Appiicant 2. BaSam Kumar Ti‘wm‘i SO11 0f 8131i Nakchhed, fegidei’rx 0f ViiEaga Masiwani. Tami} Muiiggii" Dimid Biiaspur (CG) K $5 3. Timpati Bagh Yadavé son of S}1‘§ Dee Bagh Yadav. (Non Appiicam) ‘ Jashpal Yadav. S011 of Latxs Shri Madhusudan Yadav (Non Appiicam) 3. Himansim Bagh Yadav. son 0f Shrj Jashpai Yaéav (N012 App}icani} 2 to 5 are rssidams of Kaiika \agar w‘Eaga Tlfrc BiEaspuy. Tahsii am? Disirict Biiaspur (0G) 6. State of Chhattisgarh through t’mi Distric: Coilector, B§1aspur (CG) (Non Ap§1icant) WRIT PE’HTEON UNDER AR’HCLE 2‘27 OF THE CONS'HTUTION OF INDEA E33: Hail’iiie Shri Sati$§i K Agm‘hatri? J. Presen’i: Siari Samnath Vsrma, Advocate for Eh: psiiiioger. Shri Bhaskar PayasL Panel Lawys: for the Siatsx’respondant Nm’S {}RAL GEEEE (Passed 011 27‘5 dav of Februaw, 2009) By this petitioo, ihe petitioners seek to chaiienge the legaiiiy ami vaiidity of the order dated 7.16.2898 {.iomexuro Pil) gassed by ’{he Board of Revenue. Bilaspor, order dated 6.2.2Q08 {Aimemo‘o ‘7H5; x passed by iher Addéiional Collector, Bilaspo; and the order da‘ied (Aimexm‘e FM) oassoé by the Sub Divisiom‘d Qiiioe‘. k; projected by the petitiooei‘s are {hat ihe peiitiooers arid the respondom No. 2 amigo bro‘ihorg. Elev eoiéed ‘éo parxiiion iheis aoces’tra} immovable propewy. ?aetition was éooe in piesence of ; pamhag and a settlemem deed was pirapared (Annexme W2). The responden: N0. 2‘: mad an awiicaiion against me pemioners for mutation of theif mmés in reveuue regords. The Tahsikiar passed a1: ex—parre order 0:1 85.20% (Aimsxure PB) and aliowed the said applicatian. The said order was chalienged by petitiongr No. E befor; the Sub Eivisioaai Oificsi‘ (Revenue) (fer 31103“: ‘S.D.O.’). A consent deed was filed before the Couitof SDD. Vide order dated 31.03.2605 (Amexure We). a modified pariiiion was made and equai shares were aliotied fer muiation. Against the said order, the respemient N0. 2 fa'aed a second appeal before 1he Additional Coiiee’tor. The said appeal was dismissed en 6.2.2608 (Amermre P5). Thei‘eagainsi, the respoizdem‘ Ne. i prefeii‘eé a revisien befere the Beard of Revenue. The said revisiei’i was ailoWed Vide Qi‘der dated 7.10.2008 {Aimexure 13/1). Heme, {his petition. I have heard leamed counsel appearing foi‘ the peiitioneis, perused the pieadings ami documents aepenaieé thereio. From the perusai ofthe i‘ecorcis, it appears ska: ma eriai facts have been suppressed by the petitioners before the authorities below and some portion of’the pi‘opeity has been sold to ihe respondent No. i, 3, 4 and 5. The Board of Revenue. aiter having considered a}! the questions has came to the conclusion as under: samemmeaeeime%eimemai W a3 em site?! meet $W 6.2mm mien?! seem ehéWesisWWt§WeWeiuWW wemeteeeemsegew$ewieeie§ee meaee,et§mqemee§iemimeiw%w we est m nee—R sit, iei’e 311mm weea, geetewmmesmeeiemwmemmeim Wiemsaemw@,mewe eefiasmwseter‘ cp eiqeWWehmmm§ em (t teem? 23.11.2305 w we 3W eaae‘xi'ei wewmwegmmeiimmmem Raises e ass safest mega ’Wuri an. met geeks ems was? e‘ anew 1E W 23.11.2ee5 It e3 W ems—v1 a? ems? § W:Wv new 'c 31W. qewees, We gee eirm‘ anew tesiio ssi03i2ooe em 31m 3e a??? We i iffi ‘m4esweswwwwmmweim Wanege'm 451% see eweiieismsmean‘eee ea; mesa ems W am. e e221? est-ea? We , egaemmtaeemeemefgwemeeeee fr §§$W§mT§WW§iQ§iW€W mm,maa1€3r1éim“mwa§%imwa§ WW§%W$UE€WW1§W §5€§Tz§WWW$mW€W$W$ W§WW%@WET%E§H§§WW $w@mwm%jmw#mww&a W€3Hékm$va§$mm§timmw$ wHQH¥fqmma€§WwwaammW @ma§%m$§ma§i¥ga§amiu§wm #4T‘$Wma€fwamafrgqmm W§$$WW§§rWvi§wWwéw W1 WEW@%W?‘1m%mm@—TE WW! WW KW aw? a? mml 1? a§r§§w wm m w aim aw, gwfa‘r gm um 331% We 'W¢§I§€@Wam%wmmc €3Hw 3W q$§$§€r§$vmm~ma§§§maz§€€um Wa§ré$mm§133fwm§mmm§f T; i 1L. g I‘wisiom Q was albwed quashing the orders passed by ihe Additionai Coiiectar anti Sub Divisienal Offw'er. In View of farsgoing, Withoui expressiilg azly oginion on merits of this case, me petitien is disposeé 9f with an Qbservaiion thai the mumiieia‘ 91'0ceedings Was decided 0n ihe basis of ‘czmssnt Gf the pstitioners and: ;es*mn em No 2.. Resgonéem \o L who Claims to be she bonazmie purchase, was mi a party ‘19 any corisem before S30. Thus, me order passed by iim 3.13.0 daisd 31.G3.200S (Amwxure 3/4) cannot be heid as legai ami pmper. The impug1e£§ orcier daisd 7.1%.2008 (Amwxura W1) passed by ihe Beard ef Revenue is just and pfopely neeés no. imarferencs. The peiii‘ion is dismissed. Howevsr, in ihe interestofjustica: liberty is reserved to tha concemeii :iai'iies to make a ii‘esh apYgHcation befere the compsteni authority for mu‘aation, §f s0 advissd. 111 the ’evsnt. an applica’iian is mada. the Campeien‘: authoriiy shali coasider the issue amr affording an Opportuniiy of heariixs to the concerned parties, includmg me § 5\‘ 5; UI Amie i'eSpOild3nt NO. 111 aC»0fdaY1C€ VVlt } la‘vV ‘, 8d]- ‘ i ; ‘ ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri ' Judge ‘