^°, IN THE HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P.227 No?%^/2009 PETITIONERS. /<y /~1/ ^' ,/)7 'w/ ^IM^ y^ ^'^s?' ! 9' ^•' -cs' '^f^ >y ...(1) KAMAL NARAYAN, aged 31 years, son of Shri Kishore Kumar. ... (2) GOPICHAND, aged 26 years Son of Kishore Kumar. ... (3) VIKRAM aged 24 years, son of Kishore Kumar. ... (4) MORDHWAJ aged 25 years Son of Pawan Kumar. ... (5) GANGADHAR aged 22 years Son of Pawan Kumar, All resident of Lodhi Para Village Arang, District Raipur. RESPONDENTS. VERSUS. ... (1) ASHOK KUMAR LODHI, aged 52 years. ...(2)NARSINGHLODHI,aged38years. ...(3) VEERBHADRA LODHI, aged 35 years. ...(4) ANGAD KUMAR LODffl, aged 36 years. All Sons of Chuagoo Lodhi (Mandal) and all residents of Lodhiara, Arang, Tahsil Arang and District Raipur (C.G.). ... (5a) KISHORE KUMAR LODHI, aged 49 years -2- \^^7 €) ... (5b) PAWAN KUMAR LODm,agea 48 years. Both are Sons of Chungoo Lodhi (Mandal) andresidents of Lodhipara, Arang, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... (5c) Smt. GODAWARIBAI LODm, aged 58 years, wife of Jairam Lodhi, Resident of Village Phoolwari, Tahsil and District Mahasamund. ... (5d) Smt. GANGABAI LODm, aged 56 years, W/o. Deraha Lodhi, Resident of Lodhipara, Arang, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... (Se)Smt. SHAKUNBAILODHI, aged 40 years W/o. Ayodhya Lodhi, Resident of Village Kalai, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). ... (5f) Smt. USHABAI LODHI, aged38 years, W/o. Rajkumar Lodhi, Resident ofVillage Kalai, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INMA. E! w i iy 1^: ;) H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Wrtt Petition (227) No.5879 / 2009 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Vereys i^imai Narayan and (rthers Ashok Kumar Lodhi and othere. Shri G.D. Waswrani, counsel for the petitionere. WRH- PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTiON OF JNDIA ORALORDER (25.02.20W) The pet'rtioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated 20-08-l^f (Annexure P/5) passed by the Board of Revenue on a revision ftled by the respondents No. 1 to 5 aml the order Annexure P/6 passed on 27-04-2009 fited by the petitiwers for review of the earlier order of Board of Revenue (Annexure P/5). (2) An order of mutation was passed by the Revenue tnspector, Arang in favour of the petffioner on 27-09-1^) against virtiich the respondents No. 1 to 5 preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the mutation order has been passed withoirt issuing nottee or wthout hearing them. tt was stated by the respondents No. 1 to 5 that in a case which is disputed the Revenue lnspe<rtor has no authority to pass an order of mutation. (3). The Board of Revenue found that Rute 27 of the mutation rules have not been foUowed and also that the appl'ication for mutation was \ fassed on the basis of a wll which has not even been proved by the persons who appiied for mutation aml on these grounds the revision \^ was allowed. After passii^ of the order Annexure P/5 by the Board of ?\-,-w -•3-.- Revenue on 20-08-1^1 a review petttion was fited by the petitioners which has been dismissed vtele Annexure P/6. It does not appears from the documents fited alor^ with the writ petition as to on v^iich date the review petition was fited, be that as it may, the Board of Revenue has observed that in a disputKl case asvl in a case where mutation is sought for on the basis of WUI the Revenue Inspector has nojurisdtettontopass an order of mutation. (4) Leamed counsei for the petitioners submits that the reviston was not maintainabte before the Board of Revenue and that the opposite parties were ncrtteed but they did not appear before the Revenue tnspector. This Court is not impressed with the argument raised by the teamed counsel for the petitioner. Mere fact of the fding of revision by the oppos'rte party befwe the Board of Revenue wouU suggest that they had (Ajectton on the order of mutation passed by the Revenue Inspector. Even rtheiwise there appears to be disputed question of fact aml t'rtle involved between the parties whtoh cannot be gone into in this pet'rtion under Arttote 227 of the Constitution of India. tn the case of Celina Coelho Pereira $Ms) and Other Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others (2010) 1 SCC 217 the Hon'bte Supreme Court has held that in exereis®of power under Arttete 227 of the ConsBtution of india the High Court can not correct all kinds of errors committed by the subordinate Courts and Tribunate and that in the guise <rf exerdse <rf this limited power HighjCourt will not acl as an appellate authority. (5) In view <rf the above, this Court does n(rt flnd any ground fbr entertaming this petitton under Articte 227 of the Const'rtution of India. The instant petition thus fails and is hereby dismissed. —— prashantKumarMishra )c-.