i['i--S- il:^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2S7) N0.4891 OF 2008 PETITIQNERS/ NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS/ APPUCANTS 1. PitamberKodwanJ,S/oGullima!Kodwani 2. Ky. Pamieshwari Devi, D/o Gullimal Kodwani. Both R/o Katora Talab, Raipur (CG). 3. Smt. Radha, W/o Govindram, R/o New Rajeridra Nagar, Raipur. 4. Smt. MayaDevi.W/o Balchand.R/oDhamtari 5. Smt. Hari Devi, W/o Ashok Kriplani, Wo Bhopat(MP). Vereus 1. DhanrajKodwani.S/oGullimat 2. R^kishor Kodwani, S/o Dhanraj. Both R l-iat»ibganj, Bnopal 287-Q2 One A SaKetnagar.M.R. QWrit petitibn under Article227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K.Agnihotn, J, Present: ShriVimlesh Bajpai, Gounselforthepetitionere. ORALORDER (Passsdbn this 5tndayOfSeptember, 2008) Being aggrieved by theorderdatod 25-7-2008 ^nnexure-P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, ChhatUsgarh, Biiaspur (Circyit Gourt at Raipur), inRevisk)ncaseNo.RN/14/A-200)/556/2007wherebytftelearned Board of Revenue rejected the revision, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2) Shri Bajpai.leamed coiinsel appeanng forthe petitionere, w<»yld submit that both the parties are legal heirs of Late (Sullimal: Earlief the respondente filed an application for mutation of the propetty in dispute ;in their name on 'the ground of oral partition betweep the parties. The Nazul OfRcer, Raipur,byorderdated 20-5-2004 mUtatedthepropertyin djspute in favpur of the resportdents. Bejng aggrieYed by the sajdjprcler, |tfte petitiQnerspreferredanappealb^retheCoUector.TheColleetorbyorder dated 10-7-2006 setaside the order bf Nazul Qffieer and remahicied ffie case with a direetion to passi ap(wopgate piyep| after laivingi Iproi^r opportunity of hearing and after e6mply(r^^ith the p*^^ justice. / . : :,' :.:: ,. • • '' : :iiliE ^ > ~::::;, :iill E^i^ E. ^. i^ 3) Shri Baijpai ^urther subtnjts thaA afte^^^re^ respondenfe tat^ a new sroundlaefowttie N^t S^er by producjr^wi^^ dated 20-9-95 execut^byl-ate GylliFnai.Tte same w^^^^a^^ NazutOfficert^c^ry^d 11-12^006 msptoofobjec^ petitipr^. B^ng agyieveaby^^id wofer, tfie rewsion beft^W&A(^OhalCc>lte<^(Nazut),w am3 agair^ thatthe^^prtei^iM'efeT^ Rew&nue, which was^^also rqeeted fey impugned order dated 25-7-2008 without aCTM^atir^^lfte fac^MKl the^case in ils true perspectlve. l^m^ eoun^^bttiits^^th^ r^porKients^ h new^ ground; after^ren^R^ ^ case^^^^^w^ appli<^onm^their^malapRlicatiGin,whichis^^i^ ff/e(^}aw^ - • l':l :::," '. .; ' ,'f ' 1' '- ;•,. 4) I have^a leaFF^ counsel appearin^ ^ thepleadir^andthedbcun^n^jjapp'^'I^M (^sionpeti^nfile^by^^5eUtion|6|s||(^B^ the authoritiee bel^Ba^ not^ theyhaveconSkler^alttttelegalEKtJecls..^^^ K ^ S) ThisGOUrtine)®raseofitsisu^rwsofyjuri^cB<^urKier^^ oftheCons^tionoftlndiashoyiclBreffainjt^^^)^^ order passed bythefic^rt^elc^eii^ptm Hl^alit^ irregulan^wjunsdK^onaliMgristerit^ recerd.whichisnotintKepreseritcase,; 6) inviewofftefpreg<^hgreasons,ttiis^tp^onis<lismis^ .motion'stage.itself,: ':! ...;,•,,;•;..•:11 ...^ ,:.:^.:':^ :: ::. .;. ~: . ^."; 7) Conseciuently, I^A.No.1 statid5;di^iioseei of. ^Sd/-- ... . Satish^K^Agmhotri .fudge^''''.;:,:'