Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Parties to the proceeding in both the matters i.e. WP No. 1115 of 1999 and SA No. 555 of 2003 are contesting right, title and interest over same piece of land, therefore, both the matters having been heard analogously are being decided by this common order.

2. In WP No. 1115 of 1999 preferred by Ram Kumar Tiwari, challenge is to the order (Annexure-P/13) passed by the Board of Revenue on 14.1.1999 directing mutation of names of all the legal heirs of late Hirondi Bai. Thus, this proceeding pertains to the contest over claim for mutation of their names in the revenue Records.

3. The other matter i.e. SA No.555/2003 has been preferred by Bandhu Prasad and others (including some parties in whose favour the Board of Revenue has passed mutation order) challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd ADJ (FTC), Bemetara, whereby the appeal preferred by Ram Kumar Tiwari was allowed and it was declared that the order dated 19.8.1976 passed by the competent authority under the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (henceforth 'the Ceiling Act') in Case No.1324-A/91(B)(3)/74-75 is illegal and ineffective for the reason that the said ord