Nafr High Court
Case Details
SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:14049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 469 of 2020 : District 1 - Sugan Chand Jain S/o Champa Lal Jain (Since Died, Through His L.R.S) 1.1 - (A). Smt. Leela Bai Wd/o Late Sugan Chand Jain Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Khisora, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh., 1.2 - (B). Laxmi Bai D/o Late Sugan Chand Jain Aged About 39 Years W/o Panna Lal Ji, R/o Village Markande, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (C). Sarita Bai D/o Late Sugan Chand Jain Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Khisora, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (D). Santosh Kumar S/o Late Sugan Chand Jain Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khisora, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - (E). Ku. Puja D/o Late Sugan Chand Jai Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khisora, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari, 2 - Prakash Chand Jain S/o Champa Lal Jain Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Khisora, P.H. No. 78, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh., Dhamtari, District : 3 - Chandan Jain S/o Champa Lal Jain Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Khisora, P.H. No. 78, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh District Dhamtari, : 4 - Dilip S/o Champa Lal Jain Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Khisora, P.H. No. 78, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Dhamtari, 5 - Prem Jain S/o Champa Lal Jain Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Khisora, P.H. No. 78, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tikam Chand S/o Champa Lal Jain Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Khisora, P.H. No. 78, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. -2- 7 - Gyan Chand S/o Champa Lal Jain Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Khisora, P.H. No. 78, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Padamchand Jain S/o Gendmal Jain Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Khisora, P.H.No. 78 Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. 2. Heard on admission. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records. 10.2 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 06.11.2020 passed by Board Of Revenue, Bilaspur in revenue revision no. R.N./04/R/A-6/212/2017. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 3. The facts of the present case are that the subject land situated at Village Khisora, Tehsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari was recorded in the name of Jhumar Lal. After his death, Jhumku Bai executed a will deed of the subject land in favour of the petitioners on 3 10.4.1991. The petitioners moved an application for the mutation on the basis of the will deed and it was allowed by the Naib Tehsildar Magarlod vide order dated 1.9.1991. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). An application to implead one Gyan Chand was moved by the respondent and that issue travelled up to the Broad of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.11.2011 remitted the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to decide the case within a period of six months. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), vide order dated 31.7.2014, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and remitted the matter back to Naib Tehsildar to decide it afresh. 4. The petitioners challenged the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur and it was dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2017. Thereafter, the petitioners assailed the order before the Board of Revenue by filing a revision and the same was dismissed vide order dated 6.11.2020. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Board of Revenue misinterpreted the order dated 27.2.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I Kurud, District Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.48A of 2014. He would further submit that a will deed was executed in favour of the petitioners and they have the right over -4- the property in question. He would also submit that the learned Revenue Authorities ought to have mutated the names of the petitioners in the revenue records according to the provisions of Sections 109 and 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. He would pray to quash the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the issue pertaining to the will deed was raised by filing Civil Suit No.48A of 2014. He would contend that a specific issue was framed with regard to the execution of the will deed and it was found not proved and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2020. He would further submit that a first appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge and it was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.3.2022 and thus, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court attained finality. He would also submit that the Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners could not prove the due execution of the will deed before the learned Civil Court. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5 8. A perusal of the orders passed by the various Revenue Authorities and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court would make it clear that initially, the will deed was executed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application for mutation before the Tehsildar based on the will deed, and it was allowed. The matter eventually reached the Board of Revenue, which passed the order against the petitioners. The petitioners then filed Civil Suit No.48A of 2014, claiming right over the property based on the will deed, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2020. A first appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.3.2022. 9. Considering the fact that the issue of the will deed has already been decided by the learned Civil Court, therefore, the Board of Revenue rightly dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge