I'/ W S J: ^t"' '" '-; "5.^ 'sflsh' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURtC.G.) W.P. HO.I:Scit112Q05 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .!^^ .ft /^ v> /^y./ m ^ .0-\<B%-: / A^/ ^- ^" /s^^'" ^ ''*-' -S'''r)// f^- ^^ ^^^ c^s^w ft.. G. Chetaram, S/o. Bhuwneshwar Aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Kharkatta, Tah. Pathalgaon, District dashpur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Tilottama Bai, D/o. Chaitan Mahkul Dhankumari, D/o. Chaitan Mahkul. Satyabhama, D/o. Chaitan Mahkul. Chandrama Bai, Chaitan Mahkul. Wd/o. No.1 to 4 are resident of Village Kharkatta, Tah. Pathalgaon, District Jaspur .APPLICANTS Rohit, S/o. Shiroram Bhukalu, S/o. Shiroram Bhagwano, S/o. Shiroram Bhani Bai, W/o. Surendro Brijmohan, S/o. Surendro Bhuwneshwar,S/o. Surendro Dhanurjaya, S/o. Surendro No. 5 to 11 Resident of Village Kharkatta, Tah. Pathalgaon, District Jashpur .NON-APPL1CANTS Tahsildar Pathalgaon, District Jaspur The Collector Dist. Jaspur (C.G.) Board of Revenue Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) |Slt!;:?|: 'l /' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA !%': HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinaleBench:Hon'bieShriPrashantKumarMishra,J. WritPetitionNo. 5599 of 2005 Petitioner s ResDondents Ghetaram, S/o. Bhuwneshwar Versus Tilottama Bai and others WritDetiti6iTUnder^rticlei226/22^6ftheConistitutionoflndia ^f Present: Shrj Ragtiavendra Prsidliah and Shri Sanjay Agrawal, cpUnseifprthe petjtioner. StinRavishVermatCounselforrespondentsNo,ltQ[4. Shri Vinod Tekam, Pan^ Lawyer for respondents :NQ.12.&13.,:-: ,;:. .•;,::: '.• ':1:.: -. NQnefor otherresponcients. . l' OKftl^QRDER :«h (25'n0ctober,2010) Heard.' 2) The Tahsildar is seized^ofthe: appljeation for mutation of the names of respondenfs No. 1 ;to| 4, wHo tiaw moved^ tti application QiRthestrengthJdfawillexecutedbYoneChetanramoni ' 10-10-1994. • There js another wiil said t6 be exeeutect byl Chetanram on; 20-10-1997.: ;.: r : : l, -! l'^ ; 3) Respondent No.4 ClianslFama before the Tahsildar is a beTiefiGiaijy; attestingwitness. f ^ Bai,.'vvt1o is ^ah'iappfj^int! Uftder the will and[ is? ino{;W j;!; iiil llli 'i!! "s: f te lli^ i.:i- 4) Before the Tahsildar, the present petitioner moved an application for summQning Chandrama Bai as a witness. The Tahsildar yideorderdated 25-01-2002 (Arinexure P/5) rejected the said prayer. The Additional Gollecte)rallowedthe revisionpreferred by the petitioner, which has been set aside by the Board of Revenue Inlhe impugned order. Consequently, the order passed by the Tahsildar has beerpaffirmed by the Board of Revenue. 5) Shri i Raghavendra Pradhan and Shri Sanjay Agrawat, tearnedcounselforthepetitiDner,placihgrelianceoBtheprovisions contained uhder Section 33 of tti6 Ghhaftisaarh Land Revenue Code, have argued that the Tahsildar has all the powers to summon any person for recording hisevidence and, therefore, the Tahsilclarshould havegrantedthe prayer ofthe petitidner: 6) On the other hand, Shri Ravish Verma, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has argued Ihat Chandrama Bai is Sne of the applicant before the Tahsildararid her examinatioh is notiatall necessary |for proving the will, therefore, the order passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Board of Revenue is not liable to be interfered. 7) Thedisputebetweerilhe partjes isabout mutationandi aboyt the validity of the will executed by Ghetanram. ChandFamal Bai is Qne'of the applteant befbre the Tahsildar. She is not an attesting witness to the will. Pfflnaifecre; validity ofthe will is required to be tested by examining the .attesting witness; in terms of Sectlo^ 63 ;of the Indian Succession Aet and Sections 68 and 69 of thetlndian Evidence Act, therefbre, it appears that the statement iof t, subbu Chandrama Bai is npt necessary. tt js for theapplicants before the Tahsildar to examine witnesses in order to prove their case for mutation offteirnames inthe reyenue reeords. If fbrany reason, the Tahsildar is ofthe opinionthatsome important witness has not been examined bythie applicants, adverse inference can be drawn by the authority, however, bynot permitting the present petitioner, who is a non-applicant Beftfre-theTahsildar to examine Chandrama Bai, the Talisildar has neither Qommitted any error of jurisdietion nor has passed any sucft;.0nJer, which shall ioccasioh Nlure of I- :- .. justice. The Board of Revenue has also hot committed any illegality by allowing the revision preferred by respondents No.Tto4.:' . .; ; :, : ^.: , ,: :. • . ;: 8) The arguments raised by the petitioner by refernng to Section 33 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code is of no assistance because Section 33 is only an enabling provision conTerring Rower to a Revenue Gourt for examinatiQn^of any pereon as a witness, however, whether or not permission should be granted would depend on faets of each case. In the present case, this Court Kas foundthatreGordingQfstatementoTGhandramaBaiiWlTOishDtan attestingwithessto'thewilltisnotneGessary, i ! ^ 9) Consequentiy, the instant wrlt petition has no. subst^nce. It deservestobeand is herebydismissed. I PrasIiaHtKumarMishra