w AMENDED PETITION IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P. ( Art 227 ^NO. ^\<A^ /2008 PETITIONER Defendant N RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs ^ ^^f Buturam, aged about 75 years, S/o Jagtu Odiya, R/o Viltage Chandana, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS :1. Pachkaud, S/o Heeralal Kenwat, aged not known, 2. Sukhiram, S/o Heeralal kenwat, aged not known Both R/o Village Chandrasur, Magarload, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. President, Board of Revenue of Chhattisgarh, Camp Court Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Additional Collector, Dhamtari (C.G.) 5. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Dhamtari (C.G.) 6. The Additionat Tahsildar, Magarload, Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ PBTITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P. (227) No. 7144/2008 Buturam Versus Pachkaud and others SB:- HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRBSENT:- Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Janak Hidko, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate, for the State. ORAL ORDER (10-3-2011) 1. The instant petition calls in question the order of the Board of Revenue dated 22-5-2008 in Revision Case No. R.N.04/R/A-6(A)/121/2007 whereby the Board of Revenue has dismissed petitioner's revision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 115/116 of the Land Revenue Code for correction of entries in the revenue records. According to respondents No. 1 and 2 they are owners of land bearing Khasra No. 240/1-2. During settlement, Khasra number has been changed as 791. However the authorities have wrongly recorded the land bearing Khasram No. 791 in the name of petitioner herein. The Tehsildar after giving due opportunity to both the parties and after making an enquiry held, Khasra No. 240/1-2 area 0.18 hectare has been changed as Khasra No. 791 during settlement and has wrongly been recorded in the name of petitioner No. 1 and allowed respondent's application and directed for correction of entries. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector vide its order dated 22-1-2007 and vide ?R impugned order, the revision is also dismissed by the" Board of Revenue. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the petition. All the,revenue authorities have concurrently held Khasra No. 240/1 was changed during settlement as Khasra No. 791. Admittedly the petitioner was not owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 240/1-2 prior to settlement. The petitioner failed to point out any illegality, perversity or absurdity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervrisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where pervrersity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge