IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR §o $ w.P. 227 No. ko% , PETITIONER : / Karnail Singh, S/o Shri APPLICANT Ghanshyam Singh Thakur, aged About 34 years, R/o Village Sambalpur, Tehsil 8a Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1. Devantin Bai, D/o Late NON-APPLICANTS . Shankar Lal W‘Kshatriya, aged about ggy‘ears, R/o Village Gatapar, at present vill. Hanouda, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Takeshwari Bai, D/o Lt. Shankar Lal P. Kshatriya, aged about 22. years, R/ o village Gatapar, at present Vill. Hanouda, Tehsil 8L Distt. Durg (C.G.) Ghanshyam Singh, S/ o Late Shri Latel, raged About years, egg/o Village Sambalpur, Tehsil 85 Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA- A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishm Writ Petition (227) No. 108/2009 PETITIONER : Karnail Singh Versus RESPONDENTS : Devantin Bai and others Appearance: Shri P.R.-Patankar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra AgraWal, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri S.L. Chandra, counsel for respondent No.3. \VRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (15.02.2011) The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 11/09/2008 (Annexure P-6) whereby his revision challenging the order dated 19/03/2004 passed by the Additional Collector; Dharntari has been rejected. (2) Dispute between the parties pertains to mutation ofthe name of the petitioner VIZ-a—yi’z respondents No.1 and 2 with respect to lands bearing khasra No. 27/1 area 2.25 acre and khasra No. 27/2 area 0.94 acre total area 3.19 acre situated at Village Sambalpur, PH No. 45, RI Circle Bhotli, Tahsil Dhamtari. (3) Petitioner moved an application before the concerned Naib l‘ Tahsildar for mutation of his name on the strength of WILL dated 12/04/1984 registered on 12/12/1989 allegedly executed by one EShankar Lal father of respondents No.1 and 2. Naib Tahsildar linitially rejected the application on 15/01/1991. In the meanwhile, r/w%:2,«z<{’* ' ‘ ’ another proceeding for mutation was initiated by petitioner’s father Ghanshyam Singh and the said mutation proceeding was pending in appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. Appeal preferred by present respondents No.1 and 2 in the mutation case initiated by petitioner’s father was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh decision to the concerned Tahsildar. When the mutation case initiated by Ghanshyam was taken up after remand, present petitioner again moved an application for mutation of his name in the revenue record on the basis of the aforesaid WILL. The Tahsildar vi’de its order dated 1/01/2003 directed mutation of the name of respondents No.1 and 2 against which petitioner preferred an appeal before . the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue which was allowed on 6/10/2003 and the revision preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2 before the Additional Collector, Dhamtari was allowed on 19/03/2004 and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue in favour of petitioner was set aside, IV p , / (4) Admittedly, the present petitioner as well as his father Ghanshyam has filed two separate suits for establishing their title. Thus, respectivetitle of the parties are pending adjudication before Civil Court. (5) It is also admitted by both the parties that in the meanwhile respondents No.1 and 2 have alienated the subject land to one Ratnesh Jain, however, said Ratnesh Jain is not a party before this i l court nor he was made a party before subordinate revenue authorities. r * @ (6) When learned counsel appearing for the parties are confronted as to how two parallel proceeding can be allowed to continue, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Board of Revenue has recorded a finding on the validity of the VVILL and has held that WILL executed by Shankar Lal in favour of petitioner is suspicious. He would submit that the Board of Revenue is not competent to record such finding and that the finding would prejudice his case in civil suit. (7) Though the Board of Revenue or for that matter any other revenue authority, while considering case for mutation is entitled to record prima facie satisfaction of the document on the basis of which mutation is sought, yet in the facts of the present case when civil suit is already pending between the parties, any finding on the validity of the WILL would definitely be used by one or the other party, therefore without interfering with the impugned order, it is directed that the finding reg/afding‘WILL rendered by the Board of Revenue shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner and the validity of the WILL shall be gone into by civil court on the strength of evidence led by the parties to prove the execution of the WILL in accordance with the relevant provisions ofEvidence Act and Succession Act. (8) With the above observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge