^vo\r c^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA ^it PetitionNo.2-^°/2003 ^ ATBILA^UR PETmONER idhar, S/oMohan^ / Aged abc»ut70 yeare, R/o VQlajger Laxmipur, P.0. Kishar^nir, Tehsil and Distdct- Mahasamund (CG) -Vensu&- ^l. ShefcnoS/o Mohan^ Aged abotd: 65 years, R/o \%U.age- Laxmipur, P.0. Kishanpur, TehsU and Distdct- Mahasarmmd (CG) ^>^ ^^^y ^i^' %s ..-y^ ^ ^ 2. BoardofEewemae, _ ,* Qictdt-Bench Raipur(CQ). ^' ^' .••' f"^ ^/ 3. Additional Conxnissioner/ <k j<^ Raipur(CQ) 4- Sub Diviaonal Qfficer (Reveaitie)/ Mahasamund (CG.) 5. TehsUdaT, Pifhora/ Qistt. Mahasasnund (CG.). 6. Revenue Inspectcr/ Rfhoira, Dtett. Mahasamyna (<^GL). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/2"27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOVE REPRESENTATION. ^^fM^ //^ ^t^:-fl. 1 '^M^' ^ -u?35^ r3 COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETjTIQN N0,2040 OF_ 2003 Shridhar Versus Shetro and others. WRiT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTSTUTION OF SND!A (SinaEe Bench: Hon'bie Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.^ Present : Shri Prashant JayaswaJ; Senlor Advocate with Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, counse! for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Banjare, counsel for respondent No.1. (Passed on 1Sth day of March, 2011) The instant petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india caiis in question the orders dated 15-11-2002 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additionai Commjssioner, Raipur in Case No.543 A-6/97-98 and 21-05-2003 (Annexure P-3) in Case No.219/A-6/2002-2003 passed by Board of Revenue. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as under: ' Petitioner sought mutatlon in his name over land bearing Khasra No.16 and 28 (after re-numbering 25 and 20), area 1.410 hectors situated at viliage Laxmipur, Tahsil Pith'ora. on one unregistered relinqulshment (agreement) dated 11-01-1980, Revenue Inspector entered the petitioner's name in the record. The same was chaiienged by the respondent before the Sub-DivisJonai Officer, Mahasamund in appeai. The respondent's appeal was allowed and the order of mutation .vvas set aside. The above order of S.D.0. was affirrned by the Additlonai Cornmissloner as weil as by Board of Revenue. Hence-this petition. 3. j have heard learned counssl for the parties. 4. Undisputediy, mutatlon order passed by Revenue Inspector . ..^•^•^^^ .:y^ j B i. '"rjj .:s; ^^s^^ ^ .. /• was based on unreglstered agreement dated 11-01-1980. Mutatlon cannot be effected based on document which Is inadmissible in Eaw under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Further, Sectlon 165 (7) (b) of C.G. Land Revenue Code bars transfer of government land vvithout written permjsslon of Collector. Therefore, the mutation order passed by the Revenue inspector was not in accordance with !aw, the same was rightjy set aside by respondent No.4 and was rightiy affirmed by respondents No. 2 & 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any iliegaiity or Irreguiarity in ths order impugned vvarranting interference ofthis Court underArticie 227 ofthe Constitution of india. 6. It is weil settied princlp!e of !aw that this Courl, In exercise of It-s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, should refrain itselffrom interfering wlth the order passed by the Court be'ov^, sxcept in such cases where perversity, iilegality, irreguiarity or jurisdictiona! error iswrit large on the face of the record, which is not In the present case. 7. Accordlngiy, the petltlon being devoid of substance is iiable to be and Is hereby dismlssed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^