B? 11 B!; K';i:. s^: 'i- ©Sfiwi—.. ^^^^l»-——ff, mTHEmGH^OVRTOFCMHATTISGARHATBIIASPU^ wftnr pETrnON rcl N0.2445/2007 PBTmONERS /^. Ramkumar S/o Jharuram Chandrakar, ^f?f>'<cte^^ ^2. ^ f^iyxroe^- ^S.DhaIsirighS/oJharuramChandraitar, i^r :-i:::/ / . 4. SarjAD/o Jhaiiuam.Ghundrakar,(dcad)- ^Mf ^y^- / ^jS. taxmi Jharuram Chandrakar, ^_ /: ' ' . :;-,'.•:' : ' ,'.' ,:: • • : ,. .^ . ^/'('^S;'^ '^A UtoteraJh^ :0/4^!^ : ; ':- ' ::-:,. '1::-':'.':;;: . £ fc Gendi Jharuratri ChaHdrakar, ^ ^' y •• Malti JharuramChandrakar, 8, •• Parwa.tiW/oJharuramChahdrakar, ^ , (AU R/o Ranchirai, R^ No.32,, TahsU Qundardeht, DistrictDurgfC.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 9f:^e&fiwjte^?' t^Crri^^ijc,, y t. iJhymukS/QKamta,^, . 2. JRamesh S/o Jugt^ Ghancirakar " 3. Ghandrasheld-iar S/o Jugut ehandraJcar 4; Saraswati D/o Jugut Chandrakar 5. Parmanand S/o Jugut Chandrakar 6. SayitriD/o JugutChandrakar 7. Sonbati W/o Jygut Chandrakar (All R/o-Ranchirai, P.C. No.32, Tahsil { Gundardehi, pistrictDurg (C.0.) 8^ BoaidsfRevenue,:(^cuitC6urt,Saipur. 1! lEqE;TnaONUNB^IARll@^:^tiEM^^ ••,;.,I]miA, ^!:4:,/'^j:,;;::....:....':;^ Ir. f Ap_pearance: Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the petitioaers. Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the respondent No. 1. ^..- vv ^- ORAL ORDER (26.08.2010) The dispute betvveen the parties pertains to con-ection of the revenue records and mutation of the name of the respective share holders m pursuance to the compromise decree passed by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No.l64-A-/1997. Learned couasel for the parties do not dispute this factual position that the decree passed in the said suit has attained finality and the same is binding between the parties. (2) An application was moved before Gram Panchayat for correction of the revenue record, wherein the petitioner No.l Ram Kumar Chandrafcar filed his objection on 15/07/1997. According to the petitioner the objection was overiooked and correction of records was ordered by the Grani Panchayat which was set aside by the Sub Divisional Officer on 10/02/2000 (Annexure P-3) and the matter was renianded back. Respondents preferred the appeal which was referred as revision and was disposed ofby the Additional Collector, Durg on ^^'-•"i-ti^ ^x-^. "^ 1 /'^'\ "^ ^' %,.w<sy ^,.:T "^sassassv' ' 28/11/2001 holding that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat for correction of the record is in consonance vvith the compromise decree passed by the Civi! Court, therefore the Sub DivisionalOfficer should not have interfered. The Board ofRevenue has also confirmed the order passed by the Collector and dismissed the revision preferred by the present petitioners. (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Gram Panchayat could not have corrected the revenue records overlookin^ the objection filed by the petitioner No.l Ram Kumar Chandrakar and tliat the order passed by the Sub Division Officer was an order of remand, therefore an appeal could not have been preferred. (4) Counsel for the respondent has argued that the resolution directing correction of revenue records passed by the Gram J'anchavat was in accordance with the decree. therefore at the first instance the appeal preferred by the present petitioners before the Sub Divisional OfEcer was not mamtainable and that an order of reniand can be challenged in appeal under the relevant provision of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. (5) Be that as it may, since both the parties agree and concede to this situation that a decree for partition has been passed on compromise by the Civil Court, there appears to be no dispute regarding partition and the only dispute between the parties is fegarding the authorift' who vvould ultimatelv correct the record. i^^*"^^ ^^ ^ij\ ,.^-t^fc^ ' '^'a, » ••:"c—!' SA. S ^ "^-<- 3 .^ (6) In vievv ofthe above, it is directed that the concerned Tahsildar shall correct the revenue record in accordance with thejudgment and decree dated 2/04/1997 passed by the 7th Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg in Civil Suit No. 164-A/1997 within a period ofone month from the date ofreceipt ofcertified copy ofthis order. (7) With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1\ ^--'^