AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 218 wordsPrashant Kumar Mishra, J
Heard.
The petitioners' names were mutated in the revenue record on the strength of a decree for possession passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur
on 4.5.1976 in Civil Suit No.36-A/75. Since the issue of title was not gone into by the Civil Court for the reason that it was an ex-parte decree, the
other party objected to the petitioners' names being mutated on the strength of only a decree for possession.
Initially, the petitioners' names were recorded but eventually the Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order remitting the matter back to the
Tehsildar, Bilha for deciding the issue of partition after hearing both the parties.
Considering the fact that the Board of Revenue has directed for hearing both the parties to the proceedings, before ordering mutation in the name of
one or the other party, the petitioners would have sufficient opportunity to state their case before the Tehsildar. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to
the petitioners by the impugned order.
Let the Tehsildar, Bilha decide the proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the Board of Revenue, if not already decided, within a period of 3
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.