IN<I»N»» HJGH COURT OF CHHATriSQARH AT BtLASPUR W.P. (Art.2271 No.6132 of 2010 Petitioner Non-appeliant No.1 Respondents Applicants Nan-aDDlicant No.2 Non-aDDlicant No.3 Non-apDlicant No.4 Shant Kumr Jsriswal S/o Late Shri Salik Ram Jaiswal, aged about-62 years, R/o viKage-Sarwani, Tahsit- Kharsja. Distt.Raigarh (C.G.) Versus 1. Savitri wife of Ramlal Agrawal 2. Ramlal S/o Kedarnath /^rawal 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Both resident of Kharsia, TahsiJ- Kharsia Distt.Raigarh (C.G.) s Basant Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Salik Ram Jaiswal. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Salik Ram Jaiswal. Rupendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Salik Ram Jaiswal, All three resident of viUage-Sarwart, Tahsil-Kharsia Distt.Raigarh (C.G.) Board of Revenue, Bilaspur Distt.Bilaspur (C.G.) Commissioner, Bilaspur (C.G.) Bitaspur Division, Sub Divisional Offlcer (R), Kharsia, DJstt.Raigarh (C.G.) Nayab Tahsildar, Distt.Raigarh (C.G.) Kharsia, And W.P. (Art.227) No.6409 of 2010 ^' Petitioners 1. Non-applicant No.2 Non-apDJicant No.3 2. Non-apDlicant No.4 3. Respondents Applicants Basant Kun^ir Jaiswsd S/o Shri Salik Ram Jaiswal, aged about 57 years; Vijay Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Satik Ram Jaiswal, aged about 55 years; Rupendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Salik Ram Jaiswal. aged about 45 years; AH R/o VUIage-Sarwani, Tahsil- Kharsjya District F^aigarh (C.G.). Versus Savitri W/o Ramlal Agrawat, aged 65 years ^ \LI fc -£ Non-applicant No.1 w«ii^^ 2. Ramlal S/o Kedamath Agrawal, aged 70 years Both -R/o Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, Distri^rRaigarh (C.G.). 3. Shant Kumar Jaiswal 8/0 Salik Ram Jaiswal. aged 60 yrs., R/o Village Sarwani, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). (Writ Petitions under Artjcle 227 of the Constitution of India) IINNNN^ Mr.M.K.Sinha. counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(Art.227) No.6132/2010 and counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.^rt.227) No.6409/2010. s Mr.Manoj Paranjape, counsel for respondente No.1 and 2 in W.P.(Art.227) No.6132/2010. MrArvind Sinha, counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(Art.227) No.6409/2010 and <?ounsel for respondents No.3 to 5 in W.P.(Art.227) No.61^/2010. Ms Sangeeta Mishra. Panel Lawyer for respondente No.7 to 9/State in^ W.P.(Art.227) No.6132/2010. Mr.Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.(Art.227) No.6409/2010. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER(ORAU (9-8-2011) 1. The aforesaid two writ petitions are disposed of by tWs common order as they are arising out of tho same order i.e. order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No.R.N./13/R/A-6/550/2009. 2. By this writ petitions under Article 227 of tho Constitution of India the petitionere have chaltenged the order dated 29.9.2010 passed bythe Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No.R.N./13/R/A-6/550/2009, wherebythe Board of Revenue has quashed the order passed by two lower appeliate Courts directing the Tahsildar for mutation the names ofthe petitioners. 3. At the outset, Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned counset for respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.(Art.227) No.6132/2010 submits that respondents No.3 t@ 5 have filed civil suit for declaration and injunction, in whlch the present petltioner in W.P.(Art.227) No.6132/2010 has impteaded as dofendant, therefore, ©veiy order ofthe revenue Courts shall be subject to decision ofthe civll suit. 1T ^r - ^ 4. Documents fiied on behalf of the parties reveat that respondents No.3 to 5 in W.P.(Art.227) No.6132/2010 have filed Civil Sult No.4A/2000. 5. Considering the pendency of civll suit between the parties, the writ petitions are disposed ofwith the observation that all the orders passed by the Board of Revenue are subject to decision of the cMI suit. No order as to costs. ^iiininN^ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge p/ ^