^^ HjQH COURT OF CHHATTJ8GARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetitSon fArt.227i No.424@ ®f2010 Petitioner Ravi Kumar Nathani, S/o ®hri Appiicant Radheshyam Nathanj, age^j about 36 years, r/o Chakarbhata, District BiSaspur (C.G.) Respondents Non-appiicant Versus 1. Kushi Bai Suryvanshi, D/o Shri Laljl Suryvanshi, aged about 67 years, r/o Tifra Biiaspur, District Bitaspur (C.G.) 2. Ghuruwa Bai, W/o Shri Ramsharan, aged about 35 years, R/o Seepat, Djstrict Biiaspur (C.G.) 3. Board of Revenue, Biiaspur, District BiSaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitutlon of irdia) Mr.Ramakant Pandey, counsel forthe petitioner. None present for respondents No.1 and 2, although servaj. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (ORAU (17-8-2011) By this writ petition under Artide 227 of the Consti^tion of India the petitjoner has challenged the legaiity & propriety of the order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure PN) passed by the Board of Revenu®,Bliaspur in Case No.R.N./02/R-A-6/312/2009, whereby jnterim order dated 22.7.2009 passed by the Tahsildar, Bilaspur in Revenue CQSQ No.2^A- 6/2008-09 bas been quashed and mutation proceeding pending before the Tahsildar was also quashed. i have heard iearned counsel for the petitioner, perused the order impugned and other documents filed on behalf of the petttioner. As per interim order passed by the Tahsildar, BiSaspur, mutetion proceeding has been inltiated on the basis ofsome sarfe cteed executed by respondent No.1 and her Power of Attorney respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner. Both the parties have fsied objection reSating to genuineness of sale deed. After hearing the parties, the Tahsildar, Biiaspur has rejected their obiection and oroceeded In mutation ^^G !y^3 || ''^tiiK&^l|||; j^ ^ -£- proceeding. Case was fbced for r^ording evidence of the petitioner's witnesses which was chalienged before the Board of R@venu@, Bilaspur and Board of Revenue has quashed the order and proceeding and held that the aiieged saie deed is not genuine and the petitioner has filed application after lapse of 17 years from such execution of deed. 4. Virtualiy by rejecting the objection of the parties, the Tahsildar, Bitaspur has not committed any itiegallty warranting interference in @xerci®eof revisionai jurisdiction. The Tahsiidar has not pas^d finalorder against respondents No.1 and 2. At the jnterim stage, it was not p^sibie for Tahsiidar to arrive at a finding that whether rtght has been acquisitioned In favour of the petitioner on the basis of such sale deed or not. Application for mutation fited after iapse of six m©nths cann{A be dismissed automatically. 5. By passing such order, the Board of Revenue, Biiaspur has exceeded the jurisdiction vested on it which is not sustainabie undw the Saw. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order ctated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bllaspur in Case NO.R.N./02/R-A-6/312/2009 is hereby quashed. The Tahsildar, Biiaspur is djrected to proceed further in the proceeding which was pending before it in Revenue Case No.23/A-6/2008-09. Parties are direeteci to remain present before the Tahsiidar, Bilaspur for further proceeding on 12.9.2911. No order as to costs. ^ Sd/- T.R Sharma Judge ^.