The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Board order reinstating a deceased woman's name in land revenue records. The Court held that the original entry was arbitrary and illegal due to collusion regarding the nature of the agreement.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 100 of 2016
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri FS Khare, Advocate For Respondents-State : Shri RK Gupta, Dy. AG for the State
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order On Board
15/01/2016
2
3
respondent No.5 was not a registered instrument although the same was a deed of relinquishment of her share in the land in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, the explanation offered by respondent No.5 that while obtaining her signature on the instrument, it was duly informed to her that the same is a instrument of relinquishment appears to be incorrect in view of the recitals made by the Tehsildar in the Namantarna Panji, wherein it was observed that “on account of giving the land by respondent No.5 in partition to the petitioners”. Thus, the revenue authorities colluded with the petitioners to make an entry on purported consent of respondent No.5 as if the instrument was a deed of partition. Thus, the Board has not committed any illegality in observing that respondent No.5 was misled while obtaining her consent.
Sd/-
Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra
ashu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition stands dismissed given the illegality in the revenue records concerning the petitioners.
Whether the Board committed any illegality in concluding that the respondent was misled during the execution of the relinquishment instrument.
Whether the present case constitutes a fit case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta Vs. Juggilal KamalapatReferred¶22
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta Vs. Juggilal Kamalapat {AIR 1967 SC 401} · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Gend Ram Satnami
Rohit Satnami
Board Of Revenue
Sarojani Bai
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
