^ NCJ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 W.P.f227^ No. J_^_ <5/0 PETITIONERS (Res. no. 1 to 6 ) ^A RESPONDENTS appellant Respondent no. 7 Respondent no. 8 Respondent no. 9 Respondent no. 10 Respondent no.11 Respondent no. 12 1. /2. .3. 4. 5. 6. VERSUS .1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ramsai S/o- Bahadur, aged about 77 years, Durga Sahu S/o- Vrindavan, aged about 42 years, Radhelal S/o- Vrindavan, aged abbut 40 years, Santosh Kumar S/o- Vrindavan, aged about 37years, Ramphal S/o- Vrindavan, aged about 35 years, Rampal S/o- Vrindavan, aged about 32 years, All R/o- Village- Bodsara, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Tiharu Ram S/o- Jhunuram Dhobi, aged about 45 years, R/o- ward-no, 19 Indira Nagar, Janjgir, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Bahoran Lal S/o- Tantiram, aged about 67 years, R/o- Village Nariyara, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Gopal S/o- Jhunuram, age not known, R/o- Udayband, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Ramnath S/o- Jhunuram, age not known, R/o- Navapara (Sohagpur.) Tahsil- Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) Baleshwar S/o- Malechhu, age not known, R/o- Korba, Tahsil- Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) Parmeshwar S/o- Malechhu, age not known, R/o- behind rest house, Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Chhedin Bai D/o- Malechhu, age not known, R/o- Amrupa, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ^ ^ Respondent no.13 Respondent no.14 Respondent no. 15 Respondent no.16 '' 8. Meena D/o- D/o- Malechhu, age not known, R/o- Amrupa, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 9. Madhav S/o- Mayaram, age got known, R/o- Mudapar, Korba, Dis ict- Korba (C.G.) 10. Udho S/o- Mayaram, age not known, R/o- Budgahan, Tahsil- Balouda, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) /II. Sudho S/o- Mayaram, age not known, R/o- Seoni Champa, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) / 12. Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) /13. Tahsildar, r : Janjgir, District-. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^JJL..... F^^,8^<*.^<,fefe>9B.»iiaatataii»»it>l*t&< ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSOARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONERS RESPQNDENTS Writ Petjtion (227} No. 94 12010 Ramsai and others. Versus Tjharu Ram and others. Shri F.S. Khare, counsel forthe petitioners. None for tho rospondonte. WRIT PET1TION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTJON OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (16.12.2010) Heard. (2) In relation to the subject !and CMI Suit No. 93-A/1978 was preferred by one Bahoran seeking recovery of possession from the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners. The suit was allowed by the Additionai District Judge and the predecessor jn interest ofthe petitioners were directed to delivery possession of the land to the said Bahoran, however this decree was set-aside by the High Court of M.P. by its judgment and decree dated 09/04/1^0 in Second Appeal No. 424/86. The S.L.P. (C) No. 4877/91 preferred by Bahoran was also djsmissed vide order dated 26/08/1991 . (3) On the strength of this judgment and decree the petitioners moved an application for mutation of their name before the Tahsiidar, Janjgir. The said prayer was allowed on 30/01/2008 (Annexure P/4). The respondents have preferred an appeal against the Tahsjldar's order, before the Sub Divjsional Officer (Revenue) and the said Appellate Authority hasallowed the appeal by /order dated 08/12/2009 (Annexure P/1). 1 J^ --2.- (4) Jn the opinion of this Court, when the dispute has been settled by the Civjl Court and there is no declaration by any Court in favour of respondents who have preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisjonal Officer, the Appellate Authority was absolutely unjustified in interfering with the order of mutation by Tahsildar, Janjgir. Merely because some persons daimjng to be interested in the land have preferred an appeal, it is not proper to interfere with the order when the claim of the petitioners 1s based on the adjudication of their right and entitlement by the Civil Court wherein the decree in their favour has been afRrmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (5) In view of the above the writ petition is allowed, the jmpugned order is set-aside. No order as to coste. Sd/- 1 Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge _ _ _ __ )\