s^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH : BIiASBffi Writ Petition (227) No. 6774 of2008 Petitioner Shyain Bai, W/o Augustram, aged about 55 years, resident of Vfllage Tilai, Tahsil aad Distdct Jaxijgir Chacapa (CG). 1 Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The Board of Revenue, Chfaattisgarh, Bilaspur, fhix)ugh its President, Board of Revenue Bflaspur (CG). The Additional Collector, Janjgir Champa (CG). The Sub Divisional Officer (R), Jmijgir, Distorict Jaoj^hr Champa (CG), Talisildar, Nawagarh, Distdct Janjgir Champa (CG). Laxmmarayaii, S/o Radheshyam, Kaailesh, S/o Radheshyam. Laxmia Bai, D/o Radheshyam- Kamla Bai, D/o Radheshyam» Vimla Bai, D/o Radheshyam. Radha Bai, Wd/o Radlieshyam, (Serial No. 5 to 10, all resident of ViMage Rogda, Tahsfl Nawagarh, Distriict Jaiij^r Champa (CG). WXIT PETITQN UNDERAm'ICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Slui Satish K. ^nifaotriJ.) Ms Renu Kocher, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri A, S, Kachwalia, Deputy Advocate Geaeral for the respondeiits No. 2, 3 and 4. OR D E R (Passed on fhis 5th Day of DecembCT, 2008) 1. By fhis petition, ftie petitioner is chaltoagiag tfae oitter dated 10.6.2008 (Aunexure P/1), passed by ffae Boaid of Revenue, Bilaspur ia Revision Case No. R.N./06/R/A-6(^/24/08 (Laxmi Narayan & offaers Vs. Sfayam. Bai) aad the order dated 19.2.2007 (Annexure P/3), passed by fhe Sub ravisional Ofl&cer (Reveuue), Jaajgir m Revenue Case No, 7/A-6/(A)/06- 07 (Laxmi Narayaa & others Vs, Shyam. Bai), ^^fss!si%, /y^\ I l 1 w-y f/ ';;^a;^' 1»N»|^' 2. 3. 4. Thakur Leanied counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter of Mangtu. There is a dispute asto whether fhe petitioner is daughter of Mangtu or not The Court ofTahsildar, Navagarh by order dated 29.5.2006 decided fhat there is no dispute with regard tb the lact that fbe petiticgier is daughter of Maagtu, The Court of Sub Div^ional Officer (Kevenue), Janjgnr states fhat it is not pxoved ffaat the petitioner is a daughter of Maagtu, as Mangtu died issi^less. Subsequently, ia revision, the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur bos also accepted the view taken by fhe Sub Dirasioaal Officer (Revenue), Jaajgir. Be that as it may, the facts are disputed witfa regaxxi to fhe statas of the petitioner, This Court white ^cercisiag jurisdiction iinder Article 227 of fhe Constitutbii of India caoiiot rccord a fiaidiag wifh regard to fhie status of the petitloner, when it is disputed. Thus, in view of the foregomg, titie petition is dismissed, However, liberty is reserved to fhe petitioner to get the diapute setfled by a jurisdictional competent Court, thereafter may take steps for lautation, iS so advised. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge