HIGH COURT OF CMHATTISGARH.BILASPUR PETITIONERS: (LR's of deceased petitioner) <» /- Writ Petition (0 No.7345of 2007 1. Ramnarayan son of Tularam, aged about 51 years; 2. Chintaram son of Tularam.aged about 47 years; 3. Shivkumar son ofTularam, aged about 43 ypars; All R/o Village Dargahan, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). 4. Kunti Bai wife of Nammu, aged about 49 years, R/o Baigapara Danitola, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 5. Bimla Bai wife of Nandkumar, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Laharsi, Post Office Laharsi, District Dhamtari Versus 1. Asharam son of Mehataru Sahu; 2. Udhoram son of Mehataru Sahu; 3. Smt. Urwabai widow of Bhishm; 4. Minor Khilendra Kumar sonof Bhishm; through his natural guardian mother Smt. Urwabai. All resident of Village Dargahan, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). 5. The Additional Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 6. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 7. The Naib Tahsildar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} RESPONDENTS: (1 to 4 are applicants) Present: Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel forthe petitioners. Mr. Vishnu Koshta, counsel for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.5 to 7. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J KSS!&SSs-i:s£!S£s£S^aeBS: a- B ORDER (7-12-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 31- 10-2007 passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur, in Revision Case No.RN/04/R/A-6/530/2007, whereby the Board of Revenue has quashed all orders passed by the subordinate courts including the order dated 18-6-2007 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Dhamtari in Revenue Case No.33-A/6year 2006-07. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other orders. 3. As per theorder impugned, at the instance of respondents No.1 to 4 herein, their names were mutated in the revenue record without complying the procedure prescribed, same was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector has quashed the order of mutation. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed fresh application for mutation before the Naib Tahsildar and their names weremutated vide order dated 18-6-2007. By the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has quashed the orders passed by all subordinate courts including the order dated 18-6-2007 which was not challenged by any of the parties before the Board of Revenue. 4. Learned eounsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 18-6- 2007 was not under challenge before the Board of Revenue, therefore, by quashing such order, the Board of Revenue has committed illegality. Learned eounsel further submits that after closing of the case, the Board of Revenue has called the file relating to mutation and without providing opportunity ofhearing has passed the order impugned. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 opposes the petition and submits that after passing order by the Additional Collector, the petitioners herein have filed fresh mutation applicationand their names have been mutated without providing opportunity to respondents No.1 to 4 herein. The order dated 18-6-2007 was subject to outcome of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and, therefore, by quashing such order, the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality. Soma 6. Although the order dated 18-6-2007 was not under challenge before the Board of Revenue, but definitely it was subject to outcome of the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioners herein have appeared before the Board of Revenue on 7-9-2007 before passing of the order impugned. Parties were heard on 11-10-2007 finally and the Board of Revenue has requisitioned the record of mutation, but the order sheet does not reflect that the petitioners herein have informed the Board of Revenue that on the basis of fresh mutation application their names have been mutated. This shows that the petitioners have not filed this petition or have not submitted their case before the Board of Revenue with clean hands. Although before quashing the order dated 18-6-2007, the Board of Revenue was required to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties, but considering the conduct of the petitioners, 1 do not find any ground for interference in the order impugned, whereby the Board of Revenue has not passed final order and only quashed the orders which have not been passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. 7. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. I.A.No.8 stands disposed of Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ej