_ g m THE HIGH COURT OE CHHATrlsgARHI AT’BILAsPUR WRrr PETITION (227)» Np; [Em ofzooggmggé Bgmh PE‘IjITIONER ’ " : ‘Smt SaLolam BaT Widow of , , I i 1 > Late Vishal Prasad aged T‘ 1 T T T T I T T T T I T T 1 about 6L years, resxdent of V 3 § vmage DOndilolaara, Khartnocn, District Tahsil- Durg ' ‘ ‘ ‘ t ‘ TC _ (ca). 1 ' ‘ VERSUS ‘ I ' : ‘ T _ , / k . _ RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Bihdu Bai Widow’of ‘V L L Q“ Late Vlshal Prasad aged \about 64 years, resident of Village-Kharthool’i? Tahsill- £ ondilchara, District Durgr ce). ‘ \ D a ( V oar-d 20f Revenue, hhattiSgarh L Bilaspur Through — Presudent Circwt. Court Raipur (C G ) > i dditional Celiector, Durg, District urg (C.G.). ‘ ub 7 Diwsmna! > Qfticer (Revenue), Dond-ilohara, Tahsii V '- , ‘Dendilbhara, , District Dung (,C.G.). ’ Tahsildar, Don’diiohara, Tahsii. Donduoha‘ra, District Durg (C,G.). ' , r ‘ :B C . A S ,‘ . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARIH AT BILASPUR } l Singie Bench: Hon‘me Shri Justice Pt§ashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.1o!4012009. l ‘ Smt. Sariojani Ba'i Petitioner Versus Smt. Bin‘du Ba'i and others. Respondent Shri Virendra Sharma, oounse! for the petitioner. Shri Vishnu Koshta. counsel for respondent NM. Shri Susheel Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.3 :0 5. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india Writ Petition {227) No.1041l2009. Smt. Saroiani Bai Petitioner Versus Respondent Smt. Bindu Bai and others. Shri Virendra Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vishnu Koshta, counsei for respondent No.1. Shri Susheei Dubey, Govt; Advocate forthe Statelrespondents No.3 to . 5. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india r ._ ORA L O R D E R (28.01.2010) Heard. (2) This order shall govern the disposal of W.P.(227) No.1040i2009 and W.P.(227) No.1041 l2009, which arise out of one common original order passed by Tahsildar, which was thereafter challenged in appeal i l , byithe present respondent Smt Bind'u Bai (3) The petitioner herein submitted an appiicatlon under Section 109/i10 of Chhatlisgarh Land Revenue Code before Tahsndar it é ,gl- Dondilohara for entering her name in the droperty of deceased Vishal. Prasad beanng Khasra Nos 450M 418 420 and 499/18 total area of 396 heciares on the ground that she had also mamed wrth Vtshal Praead (harem after referred as ‘deceeeed’), and as such she rs entitled to get her name mutated in his property atong, with his first yrifey,’ ¥ Hindu Bar. ‘ ‘ (4) Aceording to the petitioner, her marri‘ége with the deceased took pieced in the year 1967 daring the subsistence of his first marriage with Bindu Bai. Vishai Prasad died on 07.01.2001. The tahsildar allowed the application vide Order dated 31.05.2004 (Annexure—RH) on the ground that since the petitioner was residing with the deceaeed before his death and at the time—of his death, she is aiso entitied to the property (5) An appeal preferred by the respondent No1 Brndu Bar was dismissed by SDO Dondilohara Vide order dated 22032005 (Annexure-P/a) and thereafter by Additionat Collector DVurg on‘ 21 .122005 (Annexure-P/4). ’ ‘ (6) The respondent No.1, Bindu Bai thereafter preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Board ' of Revenue ought not to have interfered with the concurrent tinding. recorded by the subordinate revenue authorities. According torshimu g she is entitied‘to get her name mutated in the property of the deceased, as revenue authorities have found that she was married to the deceased. He also submits that the deceased has executed a will in her favour on 27 11 1995 (Annexure—Pl2) and for this reason also “ she is entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased and get her name mutated on the land for which will has been executed (7) On the other hand Shn Vishnu Koshta learned counsel for respondent No1 has supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue %8) 0n perusal of the record it would appear that the order passed g by Tahsildar was only on the haste that the petitioner was residing wrth i I y ”i 5 ~3- } t the deceased as his second wife, therefofre, her name shouid be mutated. Admitted\y, the second marriage tdok place in the year 1967. The question as to the validity of the secoind marriage can oniy be iooked into by the iurisdictional civii Courtin ;a property constituted civii eu'rt and the revenue Court couid not have aiiowed the application for mutation on thie ground. Without entering into “the merits or commenting anything on the respective rights of the parties, this Court finds that the Board oi Revenue has not committed any such error of jurisdiction in allowing the revision tiled by the respondent No.1 warranting interierence by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. (9) lt is made clear that this Court has not opined anything on the merit of the case. The rights and titie of the parties shall be open tobe determined in the civil Court, if any such suit is filed by the parties herein before the jurisdictional civil Court, in which both the parties would be free to plead necessary facts in order to prove their respective cases. (10) With this observation, the instant petitions fail and are hereby x dismissed. (it) A copy of this Order be placed on the record of WP. {227) No.1o41/2ooe. ‘ ._ Sd/_' r . VIPg-rashant Kumar Mi‘shra . .Judge ~