1 WPC No. 1534 of 2016 2025:CGHC:1797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1534 of 2016  Smt. Chanchala Lal Wd/o Late Ashwani Kumar Lal, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Birra, P.S. Birra, Tahsil Bahmindih District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus  Nand Kishore S/o Late Pyare Lal, aged about 73 years, R/o Village and Tahsil Jaijaipur, P.S. Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner :- Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent :- Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/01/2025 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue by which revision filed by the respondent has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Tahsildar to decide the matter afresh after hearing the interested parties in accordance with Sections 109 and 110 of the ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.15 16:16:08 +0530 2 WPC No. 1534 of 2016 Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity “the Code of 1959”) in accordance with law. 2. Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Board of Revenue is absolutely unjustified in granting revision by recording a finding perverse to the record as the legality, validity and correctness could not have been examined by the Board of Revenue with regard to Will deed dated 17.06.2012 and also being a widow and the only legal heir of Ashwani Kumar (deceased), petitioner is legally entitled to be mutated in revenue records in place of her husband (deceased) as per provision prescribed under Section 109 of the Code, 1959, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the respondent, would support the impugned order and submit that the objection raised by the respondent herein was rejected by the Tahsildar on 27.10.2013 against which he preferred appeal along with application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, seeking leave to appeal, but the same was dismissed and leave to appeal was not granted and that order was affirmed by the Commissioner 3 WPC No. 1534 of 2016 in the second appeal, therefore, the Board of Revenue has rightly remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to decide the matter afresh after hearing the interested parties in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions matter herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, the dispute relates to the property of Ashwani Kumar Lal who died on 21.06.2012. The petitioner herein being a wife of the deceased, filed application for mutation on 17.08.2012 in which the respondent herein filed his objection stating that he has purchased the said property from his own income, therefore, he be made as a party/non-applicant in that proceedings, but it was not considered and the order of mutation was passed in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar vide order dated 27.02.2013. Against the order of Tahsildar respondent preferred an appeal along with application before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and sought leave to appeal which was not granted and ultimately application and the appeal both were rejected vide order dated 28.11.2014 and the Commissioner by order dated 24.08.2015 dismissed the 4 WPC No. 1534 of 2016 appeal preferred by the respondent herein affirming the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Thereafter, respondent preferred revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision preferred by the respondent and directed the Tahsildar to decide the matter afresh after hearing the interested parties. 6. However, the facts remains that the respondent is the father of Ashwani Kumar (deceased) who made an objection before the Tahsildar for arraying as a party which was not considered and he was not arrayed as a party and the Tahsildar allowed the application for mutation filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent preferred an appeal along with application for grant of leave to appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Further, same illegality was committed by the Commissioner while rejecting the appeal of the respondent herein which was ultimately noticed by the Board of Revenue, holding that the respondent herein is the necessary/interested party and is required to be heard before deciding the mutation application in view of the provision prescribed under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code, 1959, and remanded the 5 WPC No. 1534 of 2016 matter to Tahsildar to decide the application for mutation afresh after hearing the interested parties, which in my considered opinion is a correct finding. Accordingly, the Tahsildar is directed to decide the application for mutation after hearing the interested parties, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any observation made by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Commissioner and Board of Revenue qua Will. The parties are directed to appear before the Tahsildar, Jaijiapur, on 3rd of February, 2025 to decide the application expeditiously on its own merit. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the instant writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit