SIWSLE BENCI COURTFEESEXBJIPTEO BY NOTIRICATIONX). 996Q0.28/W(XI- B/C.G705 AS SPECtFlED IN SCHB)ULE I&BOFTHECWRTFEESACTWB'O.. IN THE HI<SH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (227) N0.3536 / 2009 ^ PETITIQNER STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH: THE COLLECTOR, RAIPUR, CHHAmGARH VERSUS RESPONDENTS ""& ^%.S^!> ff"^,^V •%. \ ^ •A. 'f o^s^- rh' ...•:• fsu:€&w^.^^f~ ..•••' ^^^3'.^!~ ^y '•^' CS^rf!^'^ .^' .•-•''" sv' ..;..•' BOARD OF REVENUE, THROUGH: THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, CIRCUIT COURT, RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH RAMKUMARMISHRA, S/0. LATE RAMJEEVAN MISHRA, R/0. VILLAGE BADE URLA, TAHSIL ABHANPUR, DISTRICT RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH r WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF, MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI. OR ANY OTHER WRIT/WRITS OR ORDER/ORDERS OR DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS OF THE LIKE The petitioner state as under: 'LJ;!?~IILJ f^'f'^'i '£5'T f^E ^LJL-i ^'"'T'tsS-<i'*t-A'sS.LJ si ' 'sS-'i'i s\St-~*i', 'sQ' rliisM UUU.RT Ui-_(.»MWA!,HSSsARM AT 8'LASPUR Writ Petition (2275 No. 3SSS of 2009 f-TITiOh';-S :! ~^T S ^S -zfft^^. Stste of Chhattisaam Versus &. i ¥'t-,C.i -f. ;'~? • ESPOND£WT; ^*^/"^^.-^ ^\f ^,.) .r^t^ ^^^^y^ f 1 ,fk. 'C^ r'^a*^ j^.^ bOSirO OT h<;SVSHu8 & aHOTH^ ^.e^^^ ..,.<^&^^ 'LAifOiT Q£^T'^T!£^:S'»J3 i?^sr^£"g3 A£5Ti^Hll SS In^T ^-i£*'T'U£af-^^^h s S£T 3 Ti 4;^&«^.i r i-i VVKI t F^ j 1 3 IQN UNUteK AKI ICL& '&^'/ OF' THE COP^S'I ITUtOIM Of !MI »A 'resent : 1B: Hon'bie SVlr. N.K. Ai Mr. Arun Sao, GovS. Advocate for the petitionsr/State. Mr. H.B. Agrawg!, iearned Senior Advocate with Mr. Sar< K'nan, counsei for the respondent No. 2. Mr. Shvam M. Tekchandani, counsel for the Intsn/enor. r>Bn| . f^ i'st- •;-" —^ SKUeK ^;sy§j^^i;' f ^ ^ -^ ^*- -^.ift .*^ ^ \ n4.ua.^un) nc;i instant petition, filed under Articie .227 of fhe Constitution of india, cal!s in auestion the leaa!itv and proprietv of the order daisd 26.2.2009 passea by Board oi Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Circu't Court, Raipur in Revenue Case NQ.M/14'R/B-121/36-A/2008 whereby the appiication of respondent No. 2 - Ram Kumar Misnra under Sections 8 read with Sections 32, 115 and 116 of the Chhsttlsgrh Lancl Revenue Code was ailowed and it was directed to mutate the dlsputed !and bearing Khasra No. 754 and 755, totsi srea 13.26 scre in the name of respondent No; 2. 2. Bnef facts of the case are as under: Pursuant to the surrender deed dated 13.4,1955 executed bv late Banshilai, Ex Malguzar In favour of petifioner/State with rega'd to disputed iand besrinci Khasra Nos. 754 and 755, total area 13^25 acres. Detitioner's name stands recorded in the rsvenue records and since then the oetitloner is In-its Dossession. In the vear 1980, the civl suit was 'lled bv the wife and dsuahter o' late Bansriiisl. Ex Matauzar ^<: ! OT surrQi i?^^ i^ijrr^nfj9rBd r?HiV aer deed as accordina to them is'e bansniisi acre o? 'and ;n tavour OT "fs petrtioner/ytaTe. Eariisr tiis suit was decreed ex parss. Later. on an app'ication fi'ecs by V"' i%fyv»K .^"^, '•! :li;asill";lv nwwabu y' fs.sseSSK- ths State/petitioner for settina aside the ex parte decree, the ex parte decree was set aside and finajly the suit was dismissed vids judgment and decree dated 2.9.1992. The abovs judgment and dscree was afirmed by the First Appellate Court vsde its judgmenf and ciecree dated 2.4.1993. The second appeai prefsrred there-agsinst was also dismlssed snd'thus the above decree had attained finslity. 3. At this stage, an app'lcation 'or mutation of the disputed iiand was fjled bv the respondent No. 2 before the Tahsiidar inter slia on the ground that the saia iand was oraily transferred by the legal rep'esentatives or tate Banshilal, Ex Maiguzar in their favour and since then ihev are in its oossession. The above aDDlication was aismissed by the Tahsildar. There-aga'nst the respondent No. 2 filed an aoD'ication before the Board of Revenue and the Bosrd of Revenus vide ImDUflned order dated 26.2.2009 directed to mutate the disDUted iand bsarina Khasra No. 754 and 755. total area 12.26 scre in the name of respondent No. 2.: 4. I have heard counse! for the partjes and perused ths matenai avaHable on record inciuding order impugned. 5. • Board of Revenue holdlng that the respondent No. 2 is in possess'on of the Isnd since 25 years, has directed the Tehsiiaar to muiate the lana In his favour. 6. Shri Agrgwa!. learned counsei for ths resoondent No. 2 fsiied to ooint out anv isw under which the mutat'on order can be oassec oased on possession.. He s'so failed to point out that the rsspondent No. 2 has anv 'eaai riaht bv wiich the !and can be mutated in his favour. Undisputediy, the land cannot be transferred orally. 7. fn view ofthe above, in the considered oplnlon ofthis Cour?, the order impi.igned dated 26.2.2009 passed by Board of Revenue is Hieaaj. deserves to be and is herebv set ssjcje. Accordingiy, fhe wrif pertion is al!owed. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. AgarwaJ Judge l^