/p^ \^s '^^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0. 5310 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Non-Applicants 1. 2. 3. RESPONDENTS Applicants Dhananjay S/o Sakhram (Correct name Sakhuram) Caste Gond, aged about.31 years, Pileshwar, S/oSakhram (Correct name Sakhuram) Caste Gond, aged about 24 years, Sakhuram S/o Jaylal, Caste Gond, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Tahkapara, Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) All R/o Village Tahkapar, Tahsil Charama, District Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Bhimsen, S/o Devsingh, Caste Gond, aged about 22 years, Jitendra, S/o Devsingh, Caste Gond, aged about 20 years, Devsingh, S/o Jamdish, Caste Gond, aged about 45 years, All R/o Village Tahkapar, Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE ^27 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents No. 1 & 2, although ser^ed. None for the respondent No. 3. ORDER VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 1. (Passedon 08/11/2011) By this petition under Article 227 of the Co.nstitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 7/8/2009 passed by Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Circuit Court Raipur) in Revision Revenue Case No. RN/09/R/A-6/185/2006 whereby finally the order passed by Tehsildar, Charama dated 30/6/1997 in Revenue Case No. 30/A- 6/96-97 has been restored whereby Tehsildar, Charama has been dismissed the application for mutation filed on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that he has already passed the order of mutation in favour of the respondents at their instance. ^•' 2-'- 2. Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners is heard. 3. Copy of orders impugned and other documents perused. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one Sumitra Bai had executed registered will in favour of petitioners thereafter respondents have claimed mutation on the ground of subsequent unregistered will alleged executed in favour of respondents in which it has been specifically mentioned that earlier will has been executed by her in favour of petitioners therefore, petitioners were necessary party to the proceeding of mutation but Tehsildar, Charama has not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 5. Name of respondents have been mutated on the basis of subsequent will. In case of succession'on the basis ofwill, only last will would be subject matter of consideration therefore, by not providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on any ground who were party to previous will, Revenue Courts have not committed any illegality requiring any interferen.ce in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, petitioners may establish their right before the Civil Court on the basis of will or other rights as non-testamentary successors, with these observations, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge T^