m ww $EN§iE gE§€$§~é PETITIONER: Smt. Kusumlata Patel, wife of Bhuwanlal (KW*"O?J"T) Patel, aged about 58 years, Occupation v/ Housew1fe, . V res1dence . 'of v111age ; Baderampur, Wrad No.6, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. vetsuS Resmndents AA 31. Mohan Lal @ Ram Kumar, son of Late L H ”V kW U“ Paras Ram Patel, aged about 38 years, M Occupation Agriculture, residence of village Baderampur, Tahsil and 9 ' Dismct Rajgarh. 2‘ Shyam Kumar Patel, son of Late Paras Ram Patel, aged about 38 years, Occupation Agriculture, residence of village Regda, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR W.P. 1227) NO. 977 OF 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Kusumlata Patel Versus Mohan Lal @ Ram Kumar and another RESPONDENTS SB:- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAIQ J PRESENT :— Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents. o RAL ORDER (21—6—2011) 1. Instant petition calis in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 9—2—2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh in Review Case No. RW/ 13/R—A— 6/02/2009 (Annexure P— 1) and order dated 15- 12-2009 in Revision Case No. R.N./ 13/R-A-6/267/2009. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner and respondents are real brothers and sister. The disputed land was recorded in the name of late Parasram i.e. father of the parties. On the basis of will deed dated 17-9-2001, t, the respondents preferred mutation application before the Naib Tehsildar after the death of their father Parasram on 3-11—2001. Notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner raised objection on 8-7—2003. On 29—7-2004, an application was moved by both the parties that they have entered into compromise and the mutation order be passed in accordance with the compromise entered into between them. On 10-8—2004, the respondents objected to the above compromise and -~-submitted that the above compromise has been fraudulently filed by the petitioner. They have not entered into any compromise and their mutation application be (0. .( . manna decided on its own merit Without taking into consideration the above compromise. The Tehsildar fixed the case for recording evidence of the parties. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Collector. The same was disposed of by the Collector directing the Naib Tehsildar to decide the legality of the compromise application first and then to decide the mutation application. The Commissioner vide order dated 25~6~20 10 (Annexure P—9) directed the Naib Tehsildar to decide the proceedings as per compromise application dated 29-7-20 lOlagainst which the respondent prefen‘ed' a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order impugned set aside the order of the Commissioner, directing the Tehsildar ,to record the name of the respondents in place of their father and also dismissed the review petition filed Thereagainst. Shri C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would - submit, the order impugned is patently illegal inasmuch as by the order impugned learned Board of Revenue has directed the Tehsildar to mutate the name in respondents’ favour whereas even if compromise application is rejected, the Tehsildar is required to pass the order after - considering petitioner’s objection filed on 8-7—2003. On the other hand, Shri Manoj Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents would submit, petitioners’ main grievance was that the mutation order should be passed in accordance with the compromise application and in fact no other objection was raised by the petitioner and the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the orders impugned and the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned and record of the case. 1 yWn 2‘ 9. It is not in dispute that earlier the Tehsildar has fixed the case for recording evidence of the parties on 5- 1~2005. The same was not recorded and therefore, While rejecting compromise application, the Board of Revenue should have directed the Tehsildar to proceed with the mutation case as was left on 5—1-2005 i.e. should record evidence of the parties and pass appropriate order. Therefore, Without entering into merits of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order of Board of Revenue suffers from jurisdictional illegality to the above extent. 10. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the order impugned is set aside to the above extent and the matter is remanded back to the Naib Tehsildar to decide the mutation application on its own rmerits Without considering the compromise application after recording evidence of the parties. 11. No order as to costs. A Sdl- N. K. Agarwal ,‘I H <4 Judge 1"!