w é IN Wug H XLH vnuHT~9F 1nwc;mTugr KT 3Aa&gg; u .P.Mv.\5! §;w“/9& fig itionwrs 1e Kaushal $rasad€since d$ceasgd3 through hi$ lEgal raprea$nt&tiva§ \ a. gurFah Pra$ad G$pta a¢ed abmut A 3 y$a£s. bc Eur endra Kumgr Gupta aged abgut;( \ 28 years {Both son3'0F Shri Kauahal §ra5ad Bupta). Smt. §ammani §Upta Ui cu of Shri Kaushal Fras&d §upta aged about 5G years, {£11 residwht OF VillaQE Karuahi Tehsi1, Pendra Road, District Eilaspurg in¢pn ’ $mt . Urmila Gupta midaQ nf Late $hri Jégdi$h rasad Gupta Résident of §wEi Héraanj, Kathi. a. Smtw Saraswati Gupta Ui$uu OF 5hrj Rameshuar Pra5$d Gumta Hesi ent 0f villapa Beohari, Oi$trict Shahd01,m.Pa amt. Usha nupta m/u gahtnSh up+- Resie t OF Vi11$ge Bechari, Di$trict $hahdol,N.P. ¢‘ gmt . ghalija m/o K?m1nsh Gupta R/Q Village Rmjhnr, Digtrict 3hahdnl,m.?‘ “w q & 4k ho $m e REraj mi?e 5£ Shri Dilip Gumta §€§i gnt OF PD. Maduas, District $idhi,W.P. ie Emt. Hmita upta miFw'UP $hri £ni1 Cupt$ R/D villaca Baoh?ri Di$trict $hahda1,W.Po ?. WadEn Lal $an OF Late Ramlal aq@d abmut 6§ years¢ Ea Wntiial §Dn of Lat& §hri Ramlal Eqad about 55 yaarso &. Gane$h Pras&a aan af Late’$hri Ramlal amad about $0 y&ar3, $11 Qmsid@nt a? Village M&ruahi, Teh$i1 Pendra raad, Hi trict Eilasnur;WqF» 1. The State OF Nadhya Pradesh through Collactar a11Espur,M.P. \H.‘Mitta1a1 Qua of ami pram Lemar 3 Daddu alia$ Rhaiyala; Egn of ahxi‘ n ta the patikionar$. hath rg$idan village Marmahi Qh$tTeh$il Pehdraroa Eileshur,M.P. \ @e k 13A omaezw w” 7’ §FTTTifH U NQEI hpTlrLfB ??6/2?7 UF 1HL C“N¢VIIUTICH “F g§hlh FhH IqSU§NFh SF éUP?9?RIRTF mRgTi UT1LLTIUh hNWLPDCR Detalla of thg gstitxuhzv L AMEA )E‘lmWg %&%¥J%mhmxab &H() J‘g 9art1cnl(ra w? tha pefltlnnwrmz- he stated ih th€ cause title. 3 « t “ an Bai §w oenbandhu Kumhax, age ut'36 yezs lab /aeeand mh,ga about 6 yrs., axa $_Deenbandu $umhax,$ 12 yxs. anesh: Dend‘umha ae at‘lO yxs.; Raae en'ad about ’xs.‘ t9 E beg min thaugh atral xéian mb her . anm Bai. Al rident o rhi, Tehsil a tt . " nd Dig. Bilaspux ' Smt. Nmi wia f-D d abo a, Gu SrDnbhu Kuax‘ad 1 Dyam ${ _ag§ GS/D ebanhuKr, g& bou mnrsh $/a Debandhu,ge 8y B in oxs r nu gua Smt Ni l ess f hbwa t uma i w/g x Rendr Kumar.Knmhar nar Tcla, %si Disxci Bilaur. t. Kunti Ba 'mc Naraya 'xas‘a ma. R/o Manx Taia Pari, s. Basu. Sm. Ssh Ba Shi aja R/0 wah Fxa, ti sp am i / n Pd Kuhz ha , as Ditt ilpr W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition N0. 91 7/1998 PETITIONERS : Kaushal Prasad (since deceased) and others d Versus RESPONDENTS : The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Appearance: ShriQRajeev Shrivastava with Shri Malay Shrivastava, counsel fOr the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA oRAL ORDER (02.12.2010) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed byvthe Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur on 27th March, 1996 dismissing his appeal for want ofprosecution. Thus, confirming the order passed by Sub Divisional Omcer, Pendra Road on 17/01/1992 which iiLturn was preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar on 5/02/199ll {2) Facts of the case, in short; are that the name of one Heeralal was recorded in the revenue records on the basis of his possession on the subject land bearing khasra No. 652 area 1.60 acre which is infact a tank. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said land from Heeralal for Rs.850/— by registered sale deed dated 27/12/1951. After death of Heeralal an application for mutation was submitted before ' the Naib Tahsildar on 11/07/1990 i.e. alter about 40 years from the [f3 ,Z/ date of purchase and the name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. (3) As the subject tank was Nistari tank of the village) certain villagers moved objections and made a prayer before Naib Tahsildar for recalling of the order by which petitioners name was mutated. This subsequent order of recalling was passed by the Naib Tahsildar on 5/02/1991. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer Revenue which came to be dismissed on 17/01/1992. (4) Though petitioners appeal before Additional Commissioner has been dismissed for want of prosecution and in such cases ordinarily prayer for restoration is liberally considered, yet inview of the facts of the case, wherein it is quite apparent that Nistari tank ofthe village has been sold by a person who was only in possession ofthe tank and was not lawful owner, this court is considering the matter on merits instead of remanding the matter to the court of Additional Commissioner. (5) There is absolutely no explanation as to why prayer for mutation was made after 40 years from the date of execution of the sale deed in petitioners favour by one Heeralal. The Naib Tahsildar rightly entertained the prayer made by the villagers for recalling of its earlier order mutating the name of the petitioner. It is mentioned in the order Annexure P—4 that in the Nistari Patrak name of the said Heeralal was mentioned as the person in possession and not as bhoomiswami and since this finding is found to be proper, the necessary consequence is that Heeralal have no authon'ty to execute 'a sale deed of a Nistari tank in favour of the petitioner, {6) Considering the totality of the circumstances, this court does not find any substance to enteitain the writ petition on melits. (7) As a consequence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. t Sd/- l l Prashant Kumar Mishrig i Judge