vcoURT: EEF‘ ' : E A,. “t5 cu L“A w-W. i Q ) :\'’év 023% }a IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IA! 11 GARH, AT BILASPUR m > a , .:'4"i- r :! 4 w WRIT PETITION 227 N0. laé O m Is? aeimh x, K L x I ! I I T RgTITIONER \ o : Smt. Sarojani Ba}, Widow of Late' Vishal Prasad, aged about 61 years, resident of Village — Kharthooii, Tahsil— Dondilo'hara, District Durg (C.G.). we VERSU$ RESPONDENTS 1, Smt. Bindu Bai, Widow of Late Vishal Prasad, aged about 64 years, resident of Village7Kharthooli, Tahsil— Dondilohara, District Durg (C6,)- 2. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarhf Bilaspur, Through -— Pfesident, Circuit / [Court, Raipur (C.G.). 3. Additional Collector, Durg, District Durg (C-G.)- x,“ 4. Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue), Dondilohara, Tahsii — Dondiiohara, District Durg (C.G.). / 5. Tahsildar, Dondilohara, Tahsil \pondilohara, District Durg (C.G.). 'ril" L ;- of 2009 ‘1 Rrr PETu‘IQN {uNDEv-RIARIICLEli OF'iNm’A. _/ w z g i HIGH COURT OF CHHATT‘SGJRH AT BILASPUR S ré m I VB ch Hon’bie ShriJusticeVPrashant Kumar Mish wm Petitian {227) NonLo4oléooa Pefiiqner Smt. Sgwhni Ba! Versus Re‘sbondenm Smt. Bfmdu Bai and athers. 1‘ y ‘ Shn Vuendra Sharma counset far the petmoner Shn Vishnu Koshta counse? for respandent No 1 Shn Susheei Dubey, Govt Advocate for the Statelré$pondents No 3 30 5. _ Writ Petitian under Article 22? of the Constitution of tndia‘ Writ PetitiogLL227) No.1041i2099. Petitioner ‘ i L Smt. Sareiani Bai V Versus Respontiientg Smt. Bindu Bai and athers. Shn Virendra Sharma counsei for the petitioner g u t , T, 8hr: Vishnu Koshta counsei for respandent No t i A Shn Susheel Dubey, Govt Advocate for the Stateifespondents No 3 in 5. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution nf andr O RA i. O R D E R (28.01.2010) ’ Heard. (2) Thle Order shalt govern the disposal of W P (227} No 104OI2069 g and W P (227) No 1041f2009 which arise out at one common errgmat order passed by Tahertdar whrch was thereafter chaltenged m appeat' 3i by the present respondent Smt Btndu Bar . ‘ '7 t“ 3)_ The/petmoner herein submitted an apptlcatton under Sectron § 09/110 of $hhettrsgarh Land Revenue Cede before Tahsitd w ( ' 1 ar C Dondiiohara €or entering her name in the roperty of deceased Vishal Praséd bearing Khasra Nos.45011,418, 4 and 499118 tota! area 9f 3.96§hectares on the ground that she ha‘ a\so married with Vishai Prasad (herein aftev referred a5 ‘decea ed’) and as such she i3 entitied to get her name mutated m hrs property atong wrth has frrst wife Bmdu Bar t '92,- (4) Accordtng to the petrtroner her marnage wrth the deceased took j 4 placed m the year 1967 durrng the subsrstence of hrs frst mamage with r r Brndu Bar Vishat Prasad dred on {)7 01 2W1 The taherldar ailewed the apphcatron vrde Order dated 31 0520M (Annexure—Rlt} on the ground that smce the petmener was reeldmg wrth the deceased befere ' ‘ his death and at the trme .ef hrs death she rs ateo entrtted to the a preperty-. (5) t An appeal preferred by the respendent NM, Bindu Bat was ¥ a dismissed by SDO Dond‘ltohara wide order dated 22 Q3 2005’ f (Annexure-Pl3) and thereafter by Addrtronal Cotlecter Durg en gr 21 12 2905 {Annexure—PM) (6) The respondent No1 Brndu Bar thereafter preferred a revrsron t before the Board of Revenue whrch has been attowed by the» i rmpugned order Learned counset for the petrtroner submits that Board a of Revenue ought not to have Interfered tanth the concurrent frndm recorded by the subordinate revenue authorrtles Aooordrng to h he Is entrtted to get her name mutated m the property of th deceased as revenue authontres have found that she was mamed to é the deceased He also submrts that the deceased has executed a wrtl 2 _ 1n her favour on 27.11.1995 (Annexure-Pi2) and for thrs reason atsm ’r , she is ehtitted to succeed to the property of the deceased and get her : name mutated on the tand for which wilt has been executed. 1 (?) On the other hand Shn Vishnu Koshta teamed counsel for; * respondent Not has supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue i v a) 0n peruse! of the record rt woutd appear that the order oassed ' r , , by Tahsrldar was oniy on the beers that the petitroner was restdrng With , @ W g r s e , f ( @ i he citeaeased as his second wife, therefore, her name shouid be m , mutaited Admitted‘y, the second marriageiook mace in Qhe year 196? The question as to the valrdrty oi the 3e ¢ ! 0nd marriage can only be ‘ ‘ 7 iooked into by the Jurisdictional cmi Court an a properly constituted eml V‘ suit and the revenue Court could not have attowed the application for ~ mutatron on thrs ground Wrthout entering into the merrte or commentrng anythmg on the respective rrghte of the partres this Court u hr V finds that the Board 0t Revenue has not committed any such error of i; 't z} jurredlctron tn attowrng the revrsron med by the respondent No 1'» warrantmg Interference by thrs Court under Artrcte 227 of the I: I, Constrtutron of tndre / (9} tt is made Clea: that‘this Court has: not opined anything on the; merit of the case. The tights and titte of the parties shall be open tone V I determined in the civil Court, if any such suit is fried by the perties herein before the iurisdictionat civii Court, in which both the parties r, I wouid be free to piead necessary facts in order to prove their; vespective cases. (10) With this observation, the instant petitionsfaii VandVa’re’herebyixé‘ e dismissed (11) A copy of this Order be pieced on the record of W P (21 No 1G41I2GG9 SdL ‘1 ’ . . i freshent Kumar Mishra i . Judge i 4 . t ' 7