Order on Board

24.01.2024 Yesterday, this matter was taken up for hearing and there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Today, again no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

1. In the present petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):-

1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24.07.2015 (Annex.P/1), passed in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N. 16/R/A-6/386/2010, passed in case of "Kamlesh Kesari & Anr. Vs. Mahendra Singh Tuteja & others" passed by learned Revenue Board, Bilaspur and Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, District. Surguja, C.G. may kindly to directed to implead/add petitioners as parties in Rev. Case no. 99/A-6/06-7 (Mahendra Singh Tuteja Vs. Madan Chand Keshari) and also may kindly be directed to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in mutation proceeding.

2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the revenue proceedings.

3) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any othe relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the suit.

2. Facts of the present case are that Plot No. 559 ad-measuring 0.09 acres situated at Deviganj Road, Ambikapur was purchased by respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 2 through a registered sale deed dated 08.08.2005. The petitioners, who are sons of respondent No. 2 challenged the sale deed as well as the power and right of respondent No. 2 to sell the suit property to respondent No.1 in Civil Suit No. 452A/2011 and 67A/2011 on the ground that the property is co-parcenary property. The petitioners also sought partition of all the properties including the suit property. During the pendency of the civil suits, respondent No. 1 moved an application for mutation before the Nazul Officer under Section 110 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code. The petitioners filed an objection before the Nazul Officer stating that the competent civil court had granted an order of status quo in relation to the suit property on 11.08.2015. The objection of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 24.10.2009 on the ground that the application moved by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was rejected on 29.02.2012. The order passed by Nazul Officer dated 24.10.2009 was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Surguja and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2010. Later, the petitioners challenged the order dated 30.08.2010 before the Board of Revenue and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2015 and against that order, the present petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that the civil suits filed by the petitioners bearing Civil Suit No. 452A/2011 and 67A/2011 have been dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2018. He would further argue that the first appeal against the judgment passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur is pending before this Court and there is an order not to create any third party interest. He would also submit that as the civil suits filed by the petitioners have already been dismissed, therefore, the petition preferred by the petitioners has become infructuous.

4. Heard.

5. An application for mutation was moved by respondent No. 1 before the Nazul Officer and in that matter, an objection was raised by the petitioners which was rejected. The order of Nazul Officer has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioners filed two civil suits and same were dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2018, in the considered opinion of this Court the instant petition has become infructous, and therefore the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).