n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR GIHATTISGARH w.P.No. 2 ./2ooo (PETITION UNDm ARTICLE *226 AND 227 OF TPE CONSTITUTION) ‘V // l// PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS mOHIBITION ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE FURTHER \‘ DmECTIONS PETITI ONERS : Atmaram, age about 4$ years, s/o Late- Bhagwani. Amarnath, age about A2 years, s/c Narayan.' Ramnath, age about 62 years, s/o Late- Sukaluram. Neharu, age about 36 yearS, s/ovLate - Nathuram. Smt. Kalyanibai, ugé about 32 years, Wd/o Late L‘xminath. Minor Shashikant, age about 9 years, D/o Late Laxminath, Through Guaf‘dian and next friend Smt‘m Kalyanibai. Minor Ku. Indu, tge about 7 years, D/o late Laxminath, Through guardian and next friend slut; Kaiynnibai. Minor Ku. Khilesh age about 1+ years 'D/o Late Laxmingth Through guardian and next friend Smt. Kalyanibai. A11 residents 01 village Lalpur P'.o.- Bagbahara, T'ahsil aud District - Mahasamund . Ver sus RESPONDENTS 1. The State OI Chhattisgarh through Oollector Mahasamund . //2// The Board of Revenue, Gwalior (M.P.) (Presiding Officer ‘Shri K.K.Verma- Member) Additional Commissioner, Raipur, Division- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The Sub-Divisional Ofxicer, Tahisil and District Mahasamund (Chhattisgar‘x) Naib Tahgsildar, Sub Tahasil Bngbahara, Tahuil and District, Mahasamund (chhattisgarhL Govind Ram Khanm, age about 7O years, S/o Kashiram Khanm; Resident of Village Lalpur P.o. Bagbahara, Tahasil and District Mahasamund. 5. DETAES OF THE PETITION WW1m¥LWJQ u}.u-4‘i.1n}dA 3 ( f‘) Bhmm’UA . Léww’? )ex/Vemi‘c LOJ£ {6) ‘XJ. eEW ggyvqw mqli QLLfKJJWf ’ gqx ‘ 14 12 2000 : Shri P S Thakur, ‘ learned counse} £or the petltloners g i 7 J I Heard on questlon o£ admlsSlon. ,1 v 2. V The Detltloners \ are aggrieved by the 4'14 order pass-ed by thel'Revenuef/L” Court directing the mutatiron 0f the name of. respondent no.6 in the revenue regorcjsq 3. ' The grievance oLfkr <1 he petltloners appears Salim pfesenredJ to be that without issulnJJcou/iselioA Weaegg/ proper notlce ami without hgfa,eJud fo’ Order. making any enqu1ry 1nto Revenue Courts lllegally E ‘ 3 Chew ~ the transfer deed, the r an¢dk ” Rbeke \“H direzggte& mutation 1n I t i ( favour‘ot respondent no.6 4. k From the records, t it appeare that the‘lana. P ; by, Kashi Ra:h,"""”” ’ ' féther o£ .respondexit no.6» 9r mutation of his name and the sald app icatlon was allowed L by the Tehslldar and that order was conflmed > 1n appeal by the Sub-Div; lonal Of£1cer, 1n 2nd appeal by the Addltio al Commlssloner and 1n the revision by t ’in’dispute was purchased ”,ndg6 imade an application Board of ~ Revenue . a§pears that 't’hle‘ Eluenced the Boaré ier occasion. ‘e Civil Court and on an 1nvest1gat10n 1nto gtJtle of respondent no.6, the C1v1l Court recorded Undisputedly the judgments c1v1l matters have attai m . _ xCivil COurt observesand h. [From the records, 1t also saw records have also im of Revenue that.” on an earl dispute had come before tl' , ’ no.6’was,.the.wowner of the there Wasafraud nor il aalé;‘ L t . :ginding . reco ’I was certainly binding upo K 7 3‘. After hearing thee 1e .I amunable passed by the Revenue Cou The petltlon is d finding 1n h1s favour. c de livered win "the Wfinality. once the ds that respondent operty and neither § enquiry , petitioners , \ , The respondent 7\~ ,, I ,t'he I n l : l-e iugnakw any further d by the Civil Court“ \, the Revenue Courts . n M ned counsel for the hold that the order calls for any interference. $~$§T f‘ RS Garg Judge J\ r Vr e ; .‘' ' , r t r, ls ' r l