W i“- EH % IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONE k£5FoN b RESPONDENTS (Hon’ble Single Bench) WRIT PETITION (227) No.H09 /2011 / Ravi Satnami S/o Alal by caste 65 Satnami aged years cultivator and resident of village math revenue circle (Sub-Tahsil) Kharora, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS L/ State of Chhattisgarh through the secretary, Department of Secretariate D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) /. 2. The Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court Raipur) (C.G.) 3. KThe Naib Tahsildar Up—tahsii Kharora District Raipur (C.G.) commissioner Raipur Revenue / 4. The District Raipur (C.G.) / 5. The Collector Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) K 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) Sukwaro Bai Wd/o Bisauha Satnami aged about 75 years. Budhlal S / o Bisauhu about 51 years.w aged c/glx /Budharu S/o Bisauha aged about 45 years. 10. Sohan S/o Bisauha aged about 43 years. TMmiJr Lv Tip/ants» RM‘P‘” 50"” WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF MANDAMUS CIRCIORARY, PROHIBITION ETC. OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER. “hm «f ,Lp to am; K£sidmfff villi; Qas y»! Ma”), gym”. 2?; Rwmua HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 406 of 201 l : Ravi Samami Versus : State ofChhattisgarh & others RS ESPONDENT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB Hon'ble Mr N K. Agarwal J) Present . Shn J R Verma, Advocate for the pennoner Shn GD Waswam, Govt Advocate for the State ‘ ORAL ORDER q i i (Passed on 24.012011) t The instant petition is directed against the order dated 06.12.2010, passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No. RN/l4/R/A— 6/425/2609 is under assan in the instant petition. 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that : in the year 1954—55 the suit land recorded jointly and severally in the names of Laxman, Budharu and Bisouha. Some portion of above undivided land was sold by Laxman in favour of Sonmati vide registered sale deed dated 25.03.1969 and the present petitioner purchased the same land vide registered sale deed dated 26.07.1969. 3. The petitioner got the said land mutated in his name, against which revisions preferred by the respondent was allowed on the ground that land was recorded in the name of Bisauha and not in the name of Laxman and therefore, mutation order cannot be directed in favour ofthe petitioner. .rww" Shri. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits : although that Sonmati purchased the undivided share of Laxman even though the petitioner’s name should have been recorded in the revenue records. Since the land in dispute was not recorded in the name of petitioner’s vendor and the property was joint property of Laxman Budharu and Bisouha, I do not hnd any substance in the petition preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Board of Revenue, warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in the light of the fact as projected by the petitioner that he purchased undivided share of Laxman who sold the suit property to one Sonmati and in turn, Sonmati sold it to him, he is nee to pursue his remedy by filing a suit before the jurisdictional civil court for partition against Laxman, Budharu and Bisouha or their legal representatives, as the case may, in which he is also nee to claim any temporary relief in the form of injunction or otherwise. With the above clarification, the petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. 6% Sahu Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge