$IN8LE BENEH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT’BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 227 No. 201 Murlidhar Soni, aged about 52 years S/o Late Jugraj Soni, R/o— Jhagrahkhand Road, Ward no. 7 Manendragarh District— Koriya. PETITI O NER VERSUS $ RESPONDENTS 1. Dharamdas Chawla S/o- Jhaman Das Chawal R/o- Ward no. 2, Manendragarh District- Koriya 2. The State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Koriya. 3. Abhinandan Kumar Jain, S/o- Late Barelal Jain ward no. 7 Manendragarh, Disrict— Koriya. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA $ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitionL227) No. 151 0f201 1 Writ Petition (227) No. 7620 of2010 PETITIONER : Murlidhar Sni i VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Anju Chawla & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUI‘ION OF INDIA (SB Hon'hle Mr N K. Agarwal J) Shn Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petmoner Present : Shn Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21.01.201 1) 1 . Heard. 2. By this common order, W.P. (227) Nos. 151/11 & 7620/10 are being disposed of as the common facts & issues are involved in both the petitions. Both the petitions have been filed against the order dated 20.09.2010, passed by Board of Revenue in revision case Nos. 1284/A-06/2008-09 and 1285/A-06/2008-09, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed adirming the order 22.12.08 passed by the Addl. Collector, Korea in Revenue Case Nos. lS/A—06/06-07 and l6/A-06/06-07 respectively. o PETITIONER : Murlidhar Soni VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Dharamdas Chawla & others & Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that : the respondent No. l in both the cases moved an application under Section 110 ofthe MP/CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’) for mutation ofNazul land Khasra No, 203/1, Area 525 Sq.f. and house constructed thereupon. The petitioner herein filed an objection on the ground that the petitioner constructed a house over the Nazul plot No. 213/ 1 and 214 and the same house has been sold by respondent No. 3/Abhinandan Kumar Jain by showing it as of his own and for that civil suit bearing Nos. 31-A/88 and 37-A/90 are already pending. Nazul Officer, vide its order dated 11.06.2007 rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and directed for mutation of the land bearing Nazul Plot No. 203/1 in favour of respondent Dharamdas Chawla and also directed for demarcation ofthe suit land. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Korea, by filing an appeal which is pending consideration. During pendency of the appeal, the Addl. Collector directed for demarcation of the suit land. The said interim order was assailed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Surguja, by nling a revision and the same has also been dismissed vide order impugned. Hence these petitions. 'Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in a mutation proceedings under Section 110 of the Code, the revenue authorities are not empowered to direct for denmwtion of suit land without thee being any application nled by the mtties. He would further submit that the suit property has already been demarcated in the civil suit med by him and there is no need to direct for its demarcation afresh. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned. 10. The respondent No. l moved an application for mutation regarding Nazul KhasraNo. 203/1 Area 525 Sq.f. The petitioner herein is not claiming any right title over Nazul Khasra No. 203/1 but is claiming his right over Nazul Khasra No. 213/1 and 214 and house constructed thereupon with a pleading that in-fact the respondent No. 1 has purchased the property bearing Nazul Khasra No. 213/1 and 214 and house constructed thereupon, thus; the dispute raised by the petitioner is in-fact is essentially a dispute of identity of the property. By way of interim order, the Addl. Collector, Korea, has directed for demarcation of the land and the same was a$rmed by the Commissioner. The appeal preferred by ‘the petitioner is pending consideration before the trial court and if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, the interim order will merge in it and no prejudice is going to be caused by the order impugned. 11. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is'not in the present case. 12. Accordingly, the petitions being devoid of substance are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. The petitioner has ever right to raise all- the points before the Civil Court and even he can very well challenge the legality and validity ofthe demarcation report. 13. However, the Additional Collector, Korea is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. No order as to cost. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge