é? IN THE HIGH COLLRT OF CHHA’lVl‘ISGARH ' BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) N0. 147 of2009 WRll‘ Pbll’l ION UNDbR ARHLLE 226/22/ OP THE CONSTITUTIr‘N OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shxi Satish K. Agnjhotri J.) Shri B. P. Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' A. S. Kachwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.4. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 14th Day ofJanuaIy, 2009) 1. The petitioner, by this petition. is impugning the Older dated 11.9.2008 in Revenue Revision Petition No. RNll4/R/A» 6(A)/3o7/2008}(nnexure P/Q) and the older dated 6.11.2008 in Review Case No. RW/ 14/RIA-o-A/72/08 (Annexuie P/ll), passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. Lealned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s mother Smt. Savitri Devi had purchased the plot bearing Khasra No. 232/2 area 0.284 hectare (equivalent to 0. 170 hectare), situated at villa'ge Sarona, RC. No. 104, Raipur, by a registered sale deed dated 14.12.1981. Alter death of the Patitioner Suresh Gupta, son of Shri Bauwan‘ Lal Gupta, aged 48 years, resident of Choubey V Colony, Raipur. - Versus Respondents 1. Aditya Jain, son of Shri Kamal Chand Jain, aged about 28 years, resident of 5, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur. 2. Rameshwar @ Baba, son of Late Halalkhor, r aged about 4O years, resident of Village Sarona, Raipur. 3. Ramu Dehrin, son of Late Halalkhor, aged about 38 yeals, resident of Village Saxona, Raipur. 4. The State of Chhatiisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur. >6 (Annaxure P] 1). On 19.5.2001 th€ pe1jtioner iiled an application for demarcau'on of the land before the 'l‘ehsildar, which was done on 28.5.2005. According to the report of demalcation dated on 14.5.2007 tAnnexure W2) an excess axea of 0.284 acre equivalent to 0.170 hectale has been entered in khasra panchsala against khasra No. 232/ 2. lf entty of the said excess area in the name 'of Halalkhor is omitted then all the land reconis would tally with the area of lands at the spot. Since the excess entIV in the said area ahected the n'tle of the petitioner, he tiled an application under Section 116 of the Chhattisgai‘h Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code 1959’) for correction in revenue records. After obtaining the permission of the Sub Divisional Oihcer, by order dated 31.5.2007 correction in the land records was directed i.e. for deletion of the name of respondent No.2/Baba alias. Rameshwar, respondent No.3/Ramu Derhin {both son of Halalkhor) recorded against Khasra No. 232/4, area 0.170 hectare and name of respondent No.1/Aditya Jain, entered in Khasra No. 163 for area 0.036 hectare of land. Being aggrieve/dx'bypthe :order dated 31.5.2007 the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Oiiicer, Raipur which was dismissed on 20. 11.2007 (Annexure P_/ 7) and the second appeal before the Additional Collector, Raipur was also dismissed by order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P18). Thereafter, the respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur which was allowed by the impugned order dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure P19). Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a review petition which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 6. 1 1.2008 (Annexure P/ 11). l have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto. The Board of Revenue in its order dated 11.9.2008 has considered all the facts and situation of the case, in detail. It was found that the name of the respondent No. 1 was entered in‘ Evenue records on the basis of the registered transfer deed of title dared 2, 12.2006 in Khasxa No. 232/4 ama 0.170 hectam in lieu of the land recorded in Khasra No. 163 area 0.036 hectare. The transfer deed was executed with the consent of the concerned person, who was ageed for transfer of land. Thus, the respondent No. 1 was entitled for getting his name entered in revenue record. The authorities below do not enjoy jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. The regstered sale deed/ transfer of land deed can be challenged only in a jurisdicu'onal civil Court. It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India should retrain itselffrom interfering with the order passed by the Courts/h'elow;veircept in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. , In View of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed at motion stage. However, on the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil 001m. if so advised, / .. ., Thakur .l Sd/- i 11 r r r ’ l Satish K. Agnihptri l. Judge