^^^^^B^^;^ s'^Sfi^^'^^^K ©-c^ *st~' c r' \ o ^ IN THE HIGH COURJ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (O N0. OF 2007 PETmONER: ^y /^ A.'' ^y %/'' J^-Darasram, Aged About- 65 years, S/o- Shri ChhatSiial Satnami, R/o- Village- Sarwa, P.H.No.-IO, Thesil- Kasdol, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Z Ghanaram, Aged About- 30. years, ^S/o- Shri Cheduram Satnami, R/o- Village- Sarwa, P.H.No.-IO, Thesil- Kasdol, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT (Sj; >- Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Circuit Court-Raipur, Through Its President, Bhagwat, Aged About- 55 years, S/o- Shri Chedu Satnami, R/o- Village- Sarwa, P.H.No.-IO, Thesil- Kasdol, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) y Manaharan, Aged About- 50 years, S/o- Shri Chedu Satnami, R/o- Village- Sarwa, P.H.No.-IO, Thesil- Kasdol, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) 9<9'f. \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22>_^OF THE ^CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR IS5UANCE OF AN _ORDER. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (d No. 1203 of 2007 Petitioneis Darasi^in and another Versus Respondents Boaid of Revcnue aad others Sin^e Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, Shri Vinay Paudey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. ORDER ( Passed on lft day ofMarch, 2007) The followiag order of fhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By fhis petition filed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, tlie petitioner challenges the validity of the iiupugned order dated 22nd Deceniber, 2006 (P/3), passed by fhe Board of Reveuue, Bflaspur in Revenue Case No. 29/A-6/2005-06. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshen, are that the petitioaer filed an appKcation uader Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hercinafter referred to as the Code') before the Tatisildar for partition of holding of the laud bearing Khasia No. 799/5, 799/6, 1713/2, admeasui-ing 0.890 hectane, situated at viUage Sarwa, Tahsfl Kasdol, District-Raipur. The Tahsildar, Kasdol, District-Raipur vide orier dated 31.5.2005 (P/l) in Revenue Case No. 24 A/6/2004-05 held that the property toown as 'Seetal Talab' is an ancestral property and the petitionera bein^ successors are entitled to be uiutated in Revenue records. Thus, flie TahsiSdar was accordingly duected to record the names of the petitionera in revenue records as Sahkhatedar. 3. Against the said orier, the i^spondents No. 2 and 3 prefen-ed au appeal, being Case No. 56fA-6/2004-05, before fhe Sub-Divisioual ^Y ^ Officer (Revenue), BhUaigarh. The Sub-Divisional Ofifcer vide order dated 30.07.2005 held that the Tahsildar has not considered the fact that the respondeats No. 2 and 3, sons ofCheduram. Satnaiui, were entifled to a share in 'Seetal Talab' aud nanies of fhe rcspondents No. 2 and 3 were recorded m. Khatouni year 2001-2002. Thus, vide oi-der dated 31.5.2005, the Sub-Divisional OfEcer set aside fhe order passed by fhe Tahsildar. 4. It is necessary to laention here that fhe petitioner has deUbeiately not ffled llie order passed by the Sub Divisioual Officer (Revenue), Bhflaigarh in the petition. 5. The respondents No. l and 2 (petitioners herein) filed an appeal, being Appeal No. 104/A/6/ year 2004.05, before fhe Additional CoUector, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur. The Additional Conector vide order dated 7.12.2005 (P/2) held that fhe second mutation caanot be directed and if fhe i-espondents No. 1 and 2 have any ',iievan.ce fb.cy should niove fhe Civil Court for necessaiy decree. Accoidingly, tfae order dated 30.7.2005, passed by the Sub- Divisioiial Ofifcer was quashed and the Additional CoUector mamtanied the orier dated 30.5.2005, passed by the Tahsildar, Kasdol. 6. Beuig aggrieved, the respondents preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. The Board of Reveniie, after having considered aU the aspects in detafl, caine to the conclusiou fhat naines of the legal heira of Chedui-am Satnami ought to have been recorded in revenue records, which was coinpletely ignored by the Tahsildar as weU as Additional CoUector. The Chairman, Boanl of Revenue found fhat the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was ia accordance with law and based on revenue lecords h available, wherein Cheduiam Rafnnmi after of fhe respondents No. 2 and 3 was reconled as Sahldiatedar ia the property in dispute, which was completely ^nored by fhe Tahsfldar and thereafter, by the Additional CoUector in their ordeis. 7. I have heard leamed couusel for the petitionera and perused ftie pleadings and docuinente appended fhereto. There is no infinnily or fflegality found in the order dated 22nd December, 2006, passed by the Board ofRevenue, Bilaspur. 8. It fa weU setfled principle law that power ofsuperintendence under ftrticle 227 of fhe Constitution of India cannot be invoked to correct niere errois of fact under supervisoiy jurisdiction. High Court cannot in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itselfinto a court ofappeal. 9. The Supremc Court in the case of Surya Deff Rai ^. Ram Cbander Rri and others (2003) 6 SCC 675 held as under- "38.........(5) Be it a writ of certioiari or fhe exercise of superyisoiy jurisdictiou, none is avaBable to correct mere en-ors of fact or of law unless ttie fonowiag requirements are satisfied: (i} the error is manifest and appareut on the face of Qie proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignoiance or utter disregard of fhe provisions of laro, and (ii) a giave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an OTor which is self-evideiit i.e. which can be perceived or deuionstrated without involving into any lengthy or coinplicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoaing. Where two inferences are reasonabty possible aad fhe subordiaate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be cafled gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certioran and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingty and ^ only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or graye uy'ustice should occasion. Csae, caution and circuinspection need to be exercised, when any ofthe abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invobed durin§ fhe pendency ofany suit or proceediugs in a subordinate court and the error though calling for conTection is yet capable of being corrected at tfae conclusion of the proceedings ni an appeal or revisioa prefenied thereagainst and entertauiiag a petition iuvokuii certioiari or supervisoiy jurisdiction of fhe High Court obstruct fhe smooth Qow and/or earty disposal ofthe suit or proceediugs. The High Court inay feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that veiy uioinent, niay becoine incapable of correctiou at a later stage and refusal to interyene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result iu prolonging ofthe Ks. (8) The High Court in exercise of certioi'ari or supervisoiy jurisdiction wffl not covert itselfinto a court ofappeal aad indulge in reapprecation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in diawing inferences or correct erroi^ of mere formal or technical character.......'' 10. Applying the dicte (supia) laid down by fhe Supreme Court ia regard to exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction to the facts of the present case, there is no error foiind in the impugned order passed by fhe Boand of Revenue and no injustice has been occasioned thereby. 11. As a iiesult and foregoiug reasons, this petition stauds disiaissed. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge