NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 149 of 2024

1. Amit Arora S/o Late Mohan Lal Arora Aged About 39 Years Through The Power Of Attorney Holder Sumit Arora (Petitioner No. 2), Ro J-111/112, Gate No. 2, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Sumit Arora S/o Late Mohan Lal Arora Aged About 36 Years Through The Power Of Attorney Holder Sumit Arora (Petitioner No. 2), Ro J-111/112, Gate No. 2, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Ankit Arora S/o Late Mohan Lal Arora Aged About 31 Years Through The Power Of Attorney Holder Sumit Arora (Petitioner No. 2), Ro J-111/112, Gate No. 2, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners Versus

1. Parag Kumar Arora S/o Late Jagdish Arora Aged About 32 Years R/o A-5 Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Dhamdha, Tahsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. Smt. Kundan Sharma Naib Tahsildar, Ahiwara, Tahsil Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioners : Mr. BP Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None present For Respondents 2 &3/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravansh i Order On Board

16.4.2024.

1. Heard on admission.

2. This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 08.012024 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg (CG) in Civil Suit No.10A/2023 (Annexure-P/1), whereby application filed by respondent No.4 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been allowed and his name has been directed to be deleted from the cause title of the aforesaid civil suit.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that, one Jagdish Arora filed application for deletion of name of his mother Somavati Arora, from the revenue papers of subject land, on account of her death and he further prayed that entry of his name alone be retained in the said revenue papers. In respect of that application, the petitioners filed objection alleging therein that names of Jagdish Lal Arora and his mother Somavati Arora were mutated in the disputed land on the basis of unregistered and illegal partition deed/award, therefore, the petitioners had requested before the Revenue Court i.e. Naib Tahsildar, Ahiwara (respondent No.4 herein) that their names also be entered into the revenue papers of the disputed land. Subsequent to filing of aforesaid application by Jagdish Lal Arora, he died and name of his Lrs. were brought on record. After hearing the parties, respondent No.4, who was posted as Naib Tahsildar, Ahiwara, rejected the objection filed by the petitioners and name of respondent No.1/Parag Kumar Arora was ordered to be mutated on the basis of of Will executed by Jagdish Lal Arora (father of Parag Kumar Arora) in revenue records of the disputed land.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that by misusing power and position, Naib Tahsildar, Ahiwara/respondent No.4 has ordered to mutate the name of Parag Kumar Arora in the revenue papers of disputed land, but he has no right to decide the title of the case, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court, therefore, respondent No.4 has been made party by the petitioners in the civil suit, to which specific allegations have been levelled against him in para 15 of the plaint. Despite that, the learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by respondent No.4, which is perverse and illegal. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance in the matter of Rajendrakumar Prataprai Mehta vs. H