Wd :^',. .-^- '"^ ••'•^?'^.:- Jf i%?»^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR @i^ PETITIONERS: S?,E;!g RESPONDENTS: l®iElis!il& Writ Petition No.4307 of 1999 Bhagwat Das (Dead) 1. Rajkumar S/o Late Bhagwat Das 2. Rukmani D/o Late Bhagwat Das 3. Champa D/o Late Bhagwat Das 4. Devlal 5. Smt. Munga. All R/o Village Khapri, Tah. Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Woman Ghasnin Bai W/o Bhuneshwar D/o Ummed Das aged 51 years 2. Bhagbai aged 60 years W/o Dayadas 3. Jagesar aged 40 years S/o Dayadas 4. Rama aged 39 years S/o Dayadas 5. Ganga Prasad aged 42 years S/o Dayadas 6. Jagdish aged 50 years S/o Dharamdas 7. Narandas aged 40 years S/o Dharamdas 8. Bhuribai aged 78 years W/o Dharamdas 9. Saradhu aged 75 years S/o Late Mangaldas No.1 to 9 all agriculturists by occupation all residents of Village Tamori, Post Bhawanipur, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur. 10. Member, Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior (M.P.) {Writ petition under Article 226-227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners. . BP J!lJlW!UWl.'^^!llk •;y. <•;-•.:•:•,"• Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (8-8-2011) 1. By this petition the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 12-2-98 passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior in Civil Revision Case No.RN/9-2/R/1241/95. 2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein have filed civil suit against the respondents which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge Class-11, Baloda Bazaar, especially on the basis of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in the proceeding initiated under Section 145 ofthe CrPC. 3. By the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has reversed the order of the Commissioner relating to the order of mutation in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners herein. Considering the fact that that was the dispute relating to mutation and parties have already approached the civil court for declaration of ownership over the suit property along with other reliefs, 1 do not find any ground for interference in the order impugned. All the orders passed by the revenue courts are subject to decision of the civil court. 4. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 3;.^; 5';;"'';'' '•^tSSS''. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge <li.,,:l...i.,-,ta!a..