IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH W.P. F227V N0. So5^ /2009 ^^ PETITIONER :1. WH- (?VPPEU^»TNC^ ®9- ^, k«»M- /qpp^t^NT M&- ^ :2. Neelu (presently Smt. Neelu Solanki W/o. Shri Dhanna Ram Solanki), aged about 34 years, D/o. Shri Shankarlal, Permanent R/o. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Presently residing at Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Suresh Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o. Shankar Lal, Permanent R/o. Village Laillunga, District Raigarh, presently residing at Priyadarshani Nagar/Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^'^W^^C^HT' \^ @W- W^w^r^^ NC^-^-y^Q.^T^Q. ^ A^ ,£/^ ^///^^ ^€y ^' 1. Board of Revenue, Through: The President, Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Smt. Janki Bai, aged about (not known to the petitioner) Wd./o. Late Mahataru, R/o. Village Ameri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ^Smt. Phool Bai, aged about (not known to the petitioners), Wd./o. Late Ghasiram, R/o. Village Ameri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh '' Mohan Singh, aged about (not known to the petitioners) S/o. Ramji, R/o. Deepika, Tahsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ v^ c^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.3092 of 2009 Petitioners versus Respondents Neelu (presently Smt. Neelu Solanki W/o Shri Dhanna Ram Solanki) and another Board of Revenue and others Present: Shri S.C.S. Nair, counselfor the petitioners. Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. None for respondent No.4. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14th February,2011) Learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard finally. 2. The petitioners have cailed in question the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 25-5-2009 (Annexure P-1) allowing the review petition preferred by respondents No.2 to 4. Petitioner Suresh Kumar purchased an areaof land admeasuring 0.55 acre from Khasra No.480 situated at Village Ameri, Patwari Halka No.26, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Biiaspur by registered sale-deeddated 1- 8-1994. The Naib-Tahsildar ordered for mutation of his name vide order dated 28-9-2004. Ghasiram, the late husband of respondent Phool Bai moved an application before Naib-Tahsildar alleging that Mahetaru, late husband of Janki Bai is illiterate and Ghasiram has never executed any power of attorney in favour of Mahetaru neither / any partition has taken place between them. Vide his order dated T" ^)° 7-10-2004, the Naib-Tahsildar recalled his earlier order dated 28-9- 2004 directing that names of Mahetaru and Ghasiram be again recorded. Appeal preferred by the petitioner Suresh Kumar was dismissed on 28-4-2006. Further appeal preferred by the petitioner Suresh Kumar before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division was kept in abeyance on the ground that a civil suit is already pending between the parties and continuance of two parallel proceedings for the same piece of land is not appropriate. 3. The petitioner Suresh Kumar thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which wasallowed by order dated 23-4-2009 (Annexure P-13) directing mutation of name of Suresh Kumar in the revenue records. Against the said order dated 23-4- 2009, review petition was preferred by respondents Smt. Janki Bai, Smt. Phool Bai and Mohan Singh. 4. Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Janki Bai and respondent No.3 Phool Bai would submit that they had not preferred any review petition before the Board of Revenue. Statement to this effect has been made in paragraph 8 of the return. Respondent No.4 has not entered appearance in this writ petition in spite of issuance of notice by newspaper publication. 5. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be apparent that a civil suit is pending consideration before the civil Court as has been observed by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 23-4-2009 and in fact it is on this basis the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, vide his order dated 16-9-2008, has kept the proceedings in abeyance on the ground that continuance of two parallel proceedings, one before the revenue Court and other before the civil Court, is not appropriate. Even otherwise, there are serious disputed questions of fact including allegation of commission of fraud etc. by the parties against each other. All these questions cannot be gone into and adjudicated in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. •*• 6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the parties shall appear and contest the civil suit, which is, as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, pending before the civjl Court, for redressal of their grievances and may also make appropriate application for grant of interim retief/temporary injunction in the manner permissible in law. It is further directed that status quo with regard to possession of the subject land shall be maintained for a period of six weeks from today and during this period the contesting parties may move before the civjl Court for appropriate interim relief. It is made clear that after expiry of six weeks from today, the order of status quo shall cease to have its effect. ——- — Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal