PURUSHOTTAM Vs. DHARMINBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 6/2/2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur in Case No.2N/23/B/A-6/8/2023 whereby, the application for grant of stay of the order dtd. 16/12/2022 passed by the Commissioner, Division Durg in Case No.592/A-6/2021-22, has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner's ancestor namely Udho has died leaving behind one son namely Fusko and one daughter Mati Bai and Fusko had two wives namely Bitawan Bai and Korbaharin Bai. The village panchayat Temri, after the death of Fusko, had made a mutation on 29/1/1999 vide proposal No.12 and mutation entry bearing No.8 in the absence of representatives of Mati Bai and the said mutation was challenged by her legal heirs before the Revenue Court vide Case No.13A/06/17-18 and the SDO(R), Nawagarh, District Bemetara vide order dtd. 13/5/2022, has allowed the objection by observing that village Temri has no jurisdiction to pass an order for mutation in case any dispute exists and further no publication was made in the said proceeding and in the earlier records pertaining to the years 1981-82, the name of Mati Bai was recorded, therefore, behind her back, the village panchayat has passed the mutation order, so, it was set aside as the said order was affirmed by the appellate Court, therefore, the same was challenged in a Revision before the Board of Revenue and by the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has also refused to grant any stay in favour of the Petitioner. Hence this Petition.

(3.) Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is illegal as the legal heirs of Mati bai have challenged the mutation proceedings at a very belated stage. He further submits that the partition had already taken place between Fusko and Mati Bai way back in the years 1983-84 and Mati Bai has already sold her share and nothing remains with her and she has also not claimed any partition during her life time, therefore, the order of the appellate Court is not sustainable as the Petitioner has demonstrated a good cause for the stay, which has been refused, therefore, prays to allow the Petition.