IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ( AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITIO M N No. g0 OF 2009 W 3:)“ RESPONDENTS 1. Vinod Shailendra Agrawal, Agrawal, aged S/o about Shri 29 years 2. Vinod Agrawal, S/o Shri Rameshwar Das AgrawaL aged about 45 years Both are R/o Ward No. 7, Shakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir‘ Champa (C.G.) 3. Smt. Deoki Devi, D/o Late Shri ‘3’ Shri Rameshwar Omprakash Das Agrawal, AgrawaL aged W/o about 55 years, R/o Kharsiya, Tehsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG) VER SUS PETITIONERS - /L 1. Agrawai, Ashok Kumar, aged S/o about Shri 40 Sewaram years. 2. Agrawai, Ajay Kumar, aged S/o about Shri 35 Sewaram years & K 3. Ghansiram, S/o Shri Sewaram Agrawal, aged about 51 years. g 4. Smt. indramani Devi Wd/o Late Shri Sewaram Agrawal, aged about 75 years. Ail are R/o Ward No, 7, Shakii, Tahsii Sakti, District Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) Applicants/Respondents, above named most humbly and respectfully submit as under: — w APPLICANTS * ; ‘ . NONAPPLICANTS \ w at. m ’ S.B. Honble Shri Justice N.K. A rwal 10-03-2010 Shri Harsh Vardhan, counsel for the applicants. Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the responden$. Heard. The instant review petition i directed against the ex- parte order passed by this Court ated 29-07-2009 in W.P. (227) No. 3822/2009 whereb and whereunder Sub- Engineer of Pubiic Works Depa ment as Commissioner instead of Tahsildar, Sakti has bee directed to be appointed as Commissioner for spot inspectio . Learned counsel for the ap eiiants wouid submit that before passing of the order of t is Court, Tahsiidar has aiready inspected the spot on 2 07-2009. Objection has already been raised by the respond nts herein and therefore, there was no occasion for the re pondents to pursue their remedy before this Court for ap ointment of some other person instead of Tahsildar as Co missioner. At the best, their remedy is to object the report fTahsildar. The facts are fairly admitted y learned counsel for the respondents. ln view of above, it is crysta clear that on the date of passing of the order impugned, t was not open for the respondents to pray for appointme t of any other person as m shite gamma, {Emirate «r‘S/I47uz/zmo —1 ,oo,aoo. k mm 200? ‘mm($afaaw) mmm wmm mmm "’mfamwmaw'wm $ai§mm ‘ WW§§$W I _ Commissioner in piace of Tahs dar, as the Tahsildar as i petition was infructuous on that da e. tted his report and the in view of above, the revie petition is aiiowed and the order passed by this Court on 2 07—2009 is recalled. it is however, made clear that the resp ndents are free to pursue their remedy against any order wh h may have been passed by the Court below on their obje tion against the report oi Tahsiidar. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge wgikdge Wmmt WMmmwmmwuimmmmimmimwwmwwm a e