Jugeshwar Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6981 Chatt

                                     1



                                                                       NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                          WPC No. 4990 of 2022

    Jugeshwar Yadav S/o Late Sonu Yadav (Mother Late Yashoda)
     Aged About 65 Years Occupation - Agriculture, Caste - Mahkul, R/o.
     Gorhikala, Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

   1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
      Revenue, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

   2. The Collector District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh

   3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.), Sub Division - Patthalgaon,
      District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

   4. The Tahsildar, Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh

   5. The Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur
      Chhattisgarh

   6. Karndhar @ Korno S/o Late Sonu Yadav (Mother Late Yashoda)
      Aged About 57 Years Occupation - Agriculture, Caste - Mahkul, R/o
      Village Gorhikala, Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur
      Chhattisgarh

   7. Mukesh Yadav S/o Shri Karndhar @ Korno Aged About 34 Years
      R/o. Village - Gorhikala, Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur
      Chhattisgarh

   8. Shekhar Yadav S/o Shri Karndhar @ Korno Aged About 36 Years
      R/o. Village - Gorhikala, Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur
      Chhattisgarh
                                                       ---- Respondent

For Petitioner                 :      Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate
For State                      :      Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer


                   Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                            Order on Board

21/11/2022

1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 15.07.2022 the present

writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned order the respondent

No.5-the Naib Tahsildar has rejected the application filed by the

petitioner seeking mutation of the property. The said application has

been rejected on the ground of a second appeal pending before the

High Court i.e. Second Appeal No. 267/2021.

2. The facts of the case in brief is that the dispute revolves around the

property that situates at khasra No. 388/1, measuring 0.03770,

khasra No. 388/2 measuring 0.0440, khasra No. 406/6, measuring

0.1090, khasra No. 419/1 measuring 0.4130 and khasra No. 449

measuring 1.8650, total measuring 2.808 hectares at village

Godhikala, P.H. No. 00011, at Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur.

The property originally stood in the name of the mother of the

petitioner namely Yashoda Bai.

3. Subsequent, the mother of the petitioner died on 09.05.2011,

thereafter the petitioner has been approaching the respondents for

getting the property mutated in his name. Meanwhile, the

respondents No. 7 & 8 who are the grandsons of the deceased

Yashoda Bai and children of respondent No.6 had filed a civil suit

seeing for their claim over the said property based upon an alleged

Will. The Civil Suit was rejected by the trial Court, against which a

First Appeal was filed and the First Appeal also stood rejected.

Thereafter, the respondents No. 7 & 8 have approached the High

Court by filing a Second Appeal i.e. SA No. 267/2021. However,

neither the appeal has been admitted, nor is there any interim

protection given by the High Court. Yet the application that the

petitioner had filed seeking for mutation of the said property in the

name of the petitioner and the respondent No.6, since both of them

are the children borne to the deceased Yashoda Bai, which has now

been rejected by the impugned order Annexure P/1.

4. Mere pending of a Second Appeal before the High Court without

even being admitted and without there being any interim relief in

favour of the private respondents cannot be a strong, valid and

justified ground for the Naib Tehsilar to have rejected the application

for mutation. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent No.6 are

the children of Yashoda Bai (the title holder of the property). They do

illegally inherited the property of the deceased Yashoda Bai. In

between, if some third person is trying to create a right over the said

property, unless there is some order in their favour, the authorities

cannot keep the proceedings pending or rejected the said

application without any cogent reason. Apparently, the respondents

No. 7 & 8 who had filed the civil suit have lost their claim before two

forums i.e. firstly before the trial Court and then in the First Appellate

Court as well.

5. Under the circumstances, unless there is an interim protection by

the Second Appellate Court, there is no reason why the mutation

proceedings should not be acted upon by the Naib Tahsildar-

respondent No.5. The impugned order therefore under the given

factual matrix is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is

accordingly set-aside/quashed. The matter stands remitted back to

the respondent No.5 for a fresh consideration and a final order to be

taken in accordance with law, particularly taking note of the

judgment passed in the Civil Suit as also in the First Appellate Court

and further there being no interim protection by the High Court in the

second appeal. The respondent No.5 in turn shall take an

appropriate decision at the earliest preferably within a period of 60

days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands

allowed and disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved