W HIGH €QURT GF GHHATT£$GARH. BELASEPUR $ingie 3ench : Hori’bie §hri H‘L. Baffu, (2.5. Wrif Pewion No. 116 of 20$? fei'étéaggg Jagatram san of Ratthu Ram Aghariya resident 0f viiiage Ma%idih: Tehsil ahd District Mahasamund, Chhattksgarh Va Riesggndenta 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through $ecmary} Department ef Revenue Raipur, ChhattiSQarh Additional Commissioner, Raipur Div'zsicn; Raégur [J\ 3. CoHector Mahasamund; Distt. Mahasamund 4, Sub Divisiona£ Officer; Revenge, Mahaeamund Tehséldar, Mahasemund 6. Panchwati; wife cf Dhanau Gend, aged aboui years] reeidentaf viiiage Pamih, Teheii am Distt. Mahasamund Met. Anusuiye, Wdfo Khomamal Chendrakar, aged about 65 years Jaiprakaeh Sfo Khemaniai’ Chandrakar Su‘reeh son of Khomanla‘ Chandrakar 10, Juga} KEshore, 8/0 Khcmanla! Chandyakar 1i. Laxmibai, D/o Khomanlal Chandrakar AH reepandents 7 %e 11 are residents of viiiage Madman Tehsii and district Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Writ Petition under Articiee 22§£227 of the Ccnetitution 0f inaia‘ l\ Pieseri‘c: Shri V.R.Tiwa,ri; couneei for the petitioner. Shri AS. Kachhaweha GA for the State. Shri Kehitij Sharma, counsei for respondent no.6. titRAL GRDER {Passeé on 253i Aetii, 29W} Petitioner is a purchaser of iand measuring 6.68 acere from orxe homaniai Chandrekar. The authorities under the Land Revenue Cod had aeseci en order reverting back the iand in question to the originai hoider K e ”U e @f Ghunmat Bai without affording an opportunéty of hearing to the nefitioner, Therefore, the petétioner is before this Court m writ oetitiori n6, 3445 ef 1999‘ This Court by an order dated 06-08-7993 has set aside the orders passed by the authorities and has remanded the matter to SDO. (Revenue) to re-do the matter in accordance with iaw after affording an Gppartunity of hearmg given to the petitioner. (2) After such remand the SDO (Revenue) had passed the order dated 16-05—1994 reverting backthe iahd to the origihai holder on the ground that the petitioner had not supplied the proper information to him. Aggrieved by that order passed by the SDO (Revenue) the petittoher had fiied an appeai Vbefore the Cotiector. The Collector by his order dated 27-03-2008, had disposed of the appeal and remanded the matter to the SDO (Revenue) to re-do the matter in accordance with law. (3) One Smt. Panchwati had fited an application before the Qotlector to reopen the case and also to grant an order of injunction in her favour. That application was opposed by the petittoner. Howeven the Collector by hie order dated 14-06—2600: had granted an order of temporary injunction in favour of Smt. Ponchwati. Aggrieved bfthat order; the petitioner had moved a revision petition before the Commissioner, tn the said revision petition he had called in question only the orders passed by the Coilector dated 14‘06-2G00. (4) The Commissioner after considering the revision petitton flied by the petitioner, has set aside the orders passed by the Collector dated 27-03-2000 which was not even the subiect matter of the revision petition. ./r That is why the petitioner is before me'in this writ petition. /V {5) Shri V.R.Tiwaril learned counsel for the petétiener states that the Revisional Authority has exceeded its iurisdiction whiie disposing of the revEsion petition filed by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel? the subisot matter of the revision petition before the Revisional Authority wee the order passed by the Collector dated 14-06—2000 and while disposing of the i revision petiton the Commissioner ought riot to have disturbed the order Dassed by the Collector dated 27-03—2090. (6) l have carefully gone through the orders passed ‘oy the Revisionai Authority lh the preamble of the order it is oleariy stated that what was questioned bv the petitioner before the Revisionai Authotity is the order passed by the Collector dated t4-G6-2ODQ. While disposing of the revision oetition the Revisionai Authority could not have set aside the orders passed by the Collectordated 27—03-2000l Therefore in my ooioion. the teamed oounsei for the petitioner is iustified in contending that the Commissioner has exceeded his brief while disposing of the revision petition. In that View of the matter: the petition tiied by the petitioner is requires to be allowed and the matter requires to the remanded to the SDO. Aooordingiv the following: Carder (i) Petition is aitowedt (ii) Order passed by the Commissioner is set aside. {iii} Both the sides would submit the matter may be remitted back to the SDO (Revenue) to re-do the matter in accordance with the law. Aocordihgiy. the matter is remitted to SDO (Revenue) i to re—do the matter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, Ordered Aocordingty. Sdl- Chief JUStice