KPUKi^BB •y BERORESTHEHON'BLEHIOHGQtJRKQFyCHHAOT'lSS/itRI-l ^-i:&^A^Btl-ASF^R:iKB5siK-.:.ilffiS3% i'@;S& ;@'W.p.:(227lfNa.f^ PiETITICtNERS .ARPl-ieANTS RESf=>e)NB@NtS/ . .NCyN-AF'F'l-lGBNTS^ '?'4.':;'.:^Manniatj^'D/Q:.^l-ate;;^G!dtianath^ag "••'•••^^^^•^^ '•about^.w%^ars^[>:i^%;;^:^'^,;^ %-'',Parwatif;:,D/(^.;l^&t:;Sii:iyhanatM,)s?agg(:lr:' "';^K^':''%^^^^is^%^®i'siss^ ..':f^^^ab^,ui^^^eare:,^?y%^^ Both.; R/Q;:^ :yillage;^^nRUT^^;T^lls^ SyrajpuF, Dislricf,Su^g'uja.(<Sli:G;gg^ .IVERS:US'':,.^^''.;:.:^:;:::&:^::^?a ^•1 .•.::Ramjatan^S/8Kj3ga!tram^^?^%KKK^%^^ Z-, ^ .,Gi[jashan.kaF;^o;^U,maghanl<^;g^sg%% .3-.'^?(DeynaTayah^S/o?'RamjalaEiJg;^g;gj||g»g: :^AII^^yjllage-SQn|3iEiR;:^aKsill®ibig^|i|R .^Distric^^Surguja^'©tSSSSSg%SB ;r35S.^^ f;%^^:t ^A:wSfc;s^^it iVVRI'rpET'i'EI<3N^HN0E8;AB'T1gl.&l22^aaRi;EHil i:!t^:^3%:e@NS]T'ITMl0N-i© ^@IA;@®ffia^ PETITIONERS APPLICANTS W.P.(227)No.' Off/20IO 1. Manmati .D/o late Siddhanath, -aged 'SLbo'ut 42 years. - , ' . ~ ' ,• 2. Rarwati D/o Late Siddhanath, aged abouf '40.years, '' , • .Both .R/o • Village Sonpur,. Tahsil ^ .Surajpur, District Sui-guja, (C.G.). RESPONDENTS/ NON-APPLICANTS VERSUS ::il.":;i;::.!.;1'-- :2.';.::'",: 3..'.:' :- ! Ramjatan S/o3agatram ' 'CjirjasKankar S/6 Uinashankar Devnarayan S/Q Rarajatan AU R/p Village SQnpur, Tahsil Surajpur, Districf SurgujafC.G.). l-r WRIT PETITIOW UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA.., ! ::: ••.':::'.':.1. ^ (SB :Hpn'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- ShnA.K. Prasad, Advocafe fbr the petitipners, ; : Shri Sanjay'Patel, Advocate forthe respbndents/eavators. ~r~ »•• ORALfeORDBR ..::,;, (Passedoa 18/08/2010) Petitioners have challenged the order dated 13/5/ 2010 passed by Board bf^Revenye ChhatttSgarh at Bilaspur in ease No. A/568/A-. 6/2004-Q5,,GTajn Sonpur, Tahsil Surajpyr^Brstrict SargLtja^C af5rmingtheorderdate(t 10/7/1995 pasSedby;Naib'Tahsildar, Surajpur on the ground that Naib Tahsildar, Surajpur has not provided any opportunity of hearing to fhe parties before passing such order/inemo effe.Gting the rights of the petitioners.. Learned eouhsel fbr the'parties are heard. Learncd counsel. for the petitioners Vehernently arg^ partition took place between petkibners and their fa Siddhana.th and on fhe basis pf such partition they applied^^fo mutation vide order dated 26/4/89 passed by; Naib.TahsiIdar, Surajpur Disfnct Sarguja in Case No. 13/A-2'?'/i88-89; Name;Qf' •2-- > 0 '<"" tHe;petifioners were.iirutat^ wUicK wasi^c^ J • ofthe petifionera Before f quasHed imally they enteredintocoihprormse^anc^on^ coniproinise'the.orjder of^ ffi ^Resen^'':'tBereafter::'wiQi6ub/ a^ ;^^;yI^sM^|^gHi^pHr^^ ::,y ;; •;':.^eGor3iviae8STiaeii:ja^^d.:IIOY7/95^^': •: :;.;" ,:, , .,• '•::' ' • :.' : ' 4. Ori th&®ther.liani^^learned;e6un lfbrthe Tespondents/Cav^ opposed the pefitiojn. aiia submiis fhatiQn 9/5y8§y property was sold ^[:Sid3hanatK fp predecessor were entitled but inten have not made pa^ applisd fbrcniufatiorr/oftheprQpertyp^ pri6r;:^t®rtsucly{c6inRr6inise!be^ therefore iio any notu^; was necessary. N'ame offhe respondenfs mufa.ted.'' ' : :1'1 . ^' : ; '••:':;: ' :';' •'' :: :::1:' :' ;.''1 5. Cdpies of the orders, dQcuinents and'argi.iirients advaneed by the parfies reveat thaX 'durmg' COL^ Siddhanafh or present petitioners have|,not rnade' pa^ respondehts everr^knowing't&efactthatSiddKanatlihasexecuted sotae doGuineiits m relatmg to sorrie partion of the' lahd. AUeged order relateff^^^^o^ 10/7/1995. passed.by^iB.^Tahsiid^ respQndents have applied for^'rmita/tibn^^^^o / Reyenue record 6n the basis^ o^ pprtiori of the lahd wKrch they Kave purcHaSed.!nof relating to alF land..^ , ; : ;: .•'.:'••' '••.^ :. .•:•:..''.:''.'':;'? :: ' .••.•;^ I'T-.J ^^^E&^' % -tSSSS^ ~ssi •^K!c'^ -:S-', ^•;;'" j-'y y 7. 8. r"? Copy 6f the'judgment ^d-dscree of civil Su^^^^ passed by CivU Judge Ctass-I, Surajpy.r dated S/8/2006 also ^reveal tha1; suit has' A)een: digmissed on the grdund ^that it was only for perrnanenf injuncyon arid not for declaration of title in which Siddhanafh has sold the land by FGgistered sale deed dated 9/5/1989,' Wheff sale deed was executed by Siddhariath on 9/5/1989 relating to some land then it was duty of the Siddhanath and the present petidoners either to exclude those land sold by Siddhanath and \ their .petition for mutatk>n or to provide oppoi-funity pf hearing to the respondeiits'but reasons best known to the Siddhanffth and petitioners they have not provided such opportunity .tb the respondents till Board of Revenue 'and first round of nmtation' proeeeding,'if shows that pe&ioners have )Me& fo;iTiufate ffi and has qet conie Uefore ffle Court wifh clean hand. ; As- pei- docyinents filed on behalf of the petifioners, present responderifs.have applBed for mutatiQn of their name on the basis df registered doci.im.ent executed by predecessor entitle of the preserit petitioners during substarice of registered sale deed the mutation of name of the.petitiQners also upon the land so sold would not be legally possible, I do not find ^any illegality. iri the order impugned requiring any interference in terms bf Under: Article 227 6f the Constitution of India. ConSequently, petition is liable to be dismissed ^jid is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. \. . Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge