IN THE HONBLE GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BH.ASPUR W.P.r227\No. sTl t n. /2010 PETITIONERS NON-APPLICANTS N0.2T05 \fv./\w' o^Ary •<J Y^"/-^ ^ti- €>^w ^^\^>> ^••^r^'^ ^ ^ '^".-^' ^^y Late Johan, Through Legal Representatives- ^l(a) Santosh @ JamunaPrasad, S/o Johan /(b) Ganga Bai, D/o Late Johan, /(c) Jamuna Bai, D/o Late Johan, ^S) Neetu, D/o Late Johan, ...N^ /<e) Geetu, D/o Late Johan, (f) Sheetal, D/o Late Johan, No. 1 (d) to (f) minor, Through Santosh @ Jamuna Prasad, S/o Late Johan, /2. Shanti Bai, W/o Chinta Ram, 3. Laxmin Bai, D/o Lakhan, All R/o Village Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Savitri Bai, W/o Shyam Sarthi, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah. and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS ^9!si)\. 'i'l'sfft vi '^ '^' ^s-f w ~^^ ^,^' RESPONDENT NON-APPLICANT N0.1 /. 1. Moharmati W/o Tillu, 2. Ishwar Sarthi, S/o Late Hori Lal Sarthi, 3. Smt. Saraswati Bai, D/o Late Hori Lal Sarthi, All R/o Jabda Para, Kewat Mohalla, Behind Gupta Dairy, In the House of Shrivastava, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. StateofChhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Bilaspur. / ^AA WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TEffi CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA R"!33 11 y. ^. vf''^'^ VS.. ^9S^S\ t ••:.g;(.:i."".iS Sj ^.^^'^ i^ ^c' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Pefition (227) No. 2100 of 2010 PETIT10NERS RESPONDENTS Vereus Late Johan, Through Legal Representatives and others. Moharmati and others. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for the petitionere. Shri Rajendra Patet, counsel for respondents No, 1 to 3. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (28.03.2011) Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constituflon of India isto the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 08/04/2010 (Annexure P/1) whereby the learned Board of Revenue has set-^ide the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division on 12/02/2009 and the order passed by the Tahsildar, Ratanpur on 21/10/1966. The Board of Revenue has also confirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional OfRcer (Revenue), Kota on 26/12/2005. (2) Drawing attention of the Court to the memo of revision presented before the Board of Revenue by the respondents No. 1 to 3 which is filed as Annexure P/9 with the writ petition, leamed counsel for the petitioners would sulxnit that before the Board of Revenue the onfy challenge was to the legality of the order passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur on 12/02/2009, and no other relief was prayed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and thus the Board of Revenue has granted prayer which was not even the subject matter of the revision. (3) Having heard leamed counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition it would appear that the respondents ,No. 1 to 3 had moved an appfication for mutation of their name in the subject :%s. \ r^- ;.L<lt>.. ,.. ,••••;!"'::'». '•msas^ lands on the ground that they are also entitled to succeed to the property of Bhuriram. When this prayer was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kota on 26/12/2005 the petitioners prefer an appeal before the Additional Collector wherein their rjght to lead evidence was closed on 02/01/2008. This order of Additional Collector was challenged by the petitionere by filing a revision before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division. When the revision was pending, Itwaria Bai D/o Bhuriram died and the petttioners moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. for their im^eadment as legal heire of Itwaria Bai. This prayer was allowed on 12/02/2009. (4) The respondents No. 1 to 3 challenged this order dated 12/02/2009 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Uvision by filing revision (Annexure P/9), however while dealing vwth this revision the Board of Revenue has ateo decided the entire mutation case by quashing the order passed by the Tahsildar, Ratanpur on 21/10/1966 and confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kota on 26/12/2005. (5) Apparently no such (ffayer was made in the memo of revision preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 3 before the Board of Revenue. Thus the order passed by the Board of Revenue is without jurisdiction as no such issue or tls was pending before the Board of Revenue. It is also to be seen that by its order dated 12/02/2009, the Commissioner has granted the petitionere' prayer for impleadment as legal heire, and as such there is no itlegality in the said order. The Board of Revenue committed an illegality by setting aside this order of the Commissioner. (6) As a resuK, the impugned order is set-^ide. The Commissfoner, Bilasfiyr Division is directed to proceed and dispose of fhe revision preferred by the petitioners on fe own merits. — —_ (7) No order as to costs. Sd//- _-^^- i prashantKumarMishra L Judge <