Sl 'l-!^<fl -«\0 -^y \v 1. 3. Writ Petition (Art.227S No. 2448 of 2010 Smt. Kamla Devi, vvife of Shri Awadh Narayan Tripathi, aged about 62 years, resident of 15/218, New Mandii Ward Kapa, Raipur, Tehs.it and District Raipur Arun Kumar, son of Ravishankar Dubey, aged about 40 years. Krishna Mohan, son of Ravishankar Dubey, aged about 38 years. Vivek Kumar, son of Ravishankar Dubey, aged about 36 years. A!l residents of Bhagirathi Dubey Temple premises, Gole Bazar, Raipur, Tehsil and Disirict Raipur (CG) Smt. Geeta Dubey, widow of Late Brijnath Dubey, aged about 41 yeare. Pinki Dubey, daughter of Late Brijnath Dubey, aged aboui 39 yeare. Rinki Dubey, daughter of Late Brijnath Dubey, aged about 33 years. Ashwini Dubey, son of Late Brijnalh Dubey, aged about 35 years, Ail residents of Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shn Dhirendra Mishra. J. 7. 14.6.2010: ihri Kshitiz Sharma, counset for the petitioner. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput,counsel appears on caveat on behalf of the resooi With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has fiied the instant petition and prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.2.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue (in shQrt "the Board") v/hereby on revision of ffie respondents, order dated 8.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Land Records, Raipur, has been set aside. 3. Facts ofthe case, in brief, are that late Shri Ravishankar Dubey- father of respondents No. 1 to 3 and predecessor in title of the disputed land - executed a registered sale deed on 1.5.1972 in favour of the petitioner herein. The petitioner applied for mutating her name in the revenqpj;ecords on the £2. basis of aforesaid sale deed and the same was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer vidshis order dated 12 October, 1998. Firstappeal ofthe petitioner was further dismissed by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 20 April,1999. However, on second appeal, the Commissioner, Land Records, Raipur, vide its order dated 8 October, 2009 allowed the appeal, set aside the orders passed by the Courts below and directed that the disputed land be mutated in the revenue records in the name ofthe petitioner. 4. Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is owner of the disputed property by virtue of saie deed executed on 1.5.1972 by its recorded owner and thus, she has a right io get her name mutated in the revenue records and her right to get her name mutated is not defeated merely for the reason that the application for mutation has been filed with delay. The Commissioner in its weil reasoned order has directed the revenue authorities to mutate the petitioner's name in the revenue records, however, the same has been set aside by the Board on extraneous consideration. The Board while passing the impugned order has committed a material illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it and the same deserves to be set aside and the order passed by the Commissioner deserves to be restored. 5. On the other hand, Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on caveat, supported the impugned order. 6. i have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The Board, after considering the arguments advanced by the respective parties, has allowed the revision preferred by the respondents on the ground that the Commissioner has set aside the orders passed by both the Forums below without assigning any reason and without considering the reasonings given by the Forums, the iand in question was already mutated in the name of legal heirs of late Ravishankar Dubey and the petitioner did not file any objection against that mutation and in such circumstances, she could not apply for mutation with respect to the same fand. The Board has further observed that the petitioner has already instituted a civilsuit with respect to the disputed properiy and her application for temporary injunction has been rejected; the Commissioner has passed the order without substituting the legal heirs of resp&ndent - Smt. Shakuntala Devi, who died during pendency of the appeal .before the Commissioner and as such, illegal. With these observations, it has been held that it would be appropriate in the interest ofjustice that status quo should be maintained with respect to the disputed property till the civil suit instituted by the petitioner is decided by the competent Court. 3 1 8. It is settled law that a writ of certiorari can only be issued in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals or authorities in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice. In the matter of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai. (2003) 6 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-38 has held thus: "38. (3) Certiorari, under Articte 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits ofjurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rutes of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure ofjustice." 9. in the light of above principles of law, if the facts of the present case are examined, 1 find that the Board and the Forums below after considering various factual aspects in the matter and alsoconsidering that the application for mutation has been filed with a deiay of 25 years after death of the vendor and after the land in question was mutated in the name of its legal heirs, have rejected the application for mutation with a further observation that the civil suit instituted by the petitioner herein with respect to the same property is already pending before a competent Civii Court. There is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the Board while passing the impugned order, which requires interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of (ndia. Accordingly, the instant petition being without substance is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. ___—^——""' Sd/- DbirendraMtehra Judge \<f