C^ii^vo iai,RSs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIGATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.CONO.'T^aSO /2008 ,,'7 PETITIONER : ^ J^^ .V/'A'^'^' ^- ^'I^/ .••' ¥'.-•' V »y ^ JV €^^\ <?E- ..s s' 'y 1. Ramfal, S/o- Heeralal, ^ 2. Ramkumar^S/o- Heeralal, ^' 3. Devnath, S/o- Heeralal, 4. Sheetmania widow of Heeralal, All are caste Gond, R/o- Village- Haripur, Tehsil- Surajpur, Distt. Surguja, VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ..s^"' 1. Ramdil, S/o- Manku, Aged about 60 years, R/o- Haripur & Latori, ,-'" 2. Somari, D/o-Late Manku, Aged about 50 years, R/o- Majira, ^- ^^ 3. Kendri, S/o-Late Manku, Aged about 45 years, R/o-Gurumha, -jC-4' ,?y \?,,,?''4. Rambasia, W/o- Late Parmeshwar, %.?; r^. ,^p ^' Aged about 60 years, R/o- Village-Latori, 5. Dalsai, S/o- Late Gopal, Aged about 58 years, R/o- Village-Latori & Haripur, 6. Adhinsai, S/o- Late Gopal, Aged about 44 years, R/o- Village- Latori & Haripur, 7. Smt. Galo, D/o- Gopal, Aged about 55 years, R/o- Latori, 8. Sunkuwar, D/o- Late Gopal, Aged about 48 years, R/o- Chera, 9. Sadhu, S/o- Late Mohan, Aged about 48 years, R/o- Latori, .^. ^ 10. Sonsai, S/o- Late Mohan, Aged 42 Years, R/o- Latori, ./'" 11. Lalobai, D/o-Mohan, Aged about 36 years, R/o- Latori, 12. Rupnibai, W/o- Late Mohan, Aged about 67 years, R/o- Village- Latori, All are Tehsil-~Surajpur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ^' 13.' State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Collector, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. r' 14. Board of Revenue, Through -Registrar, Bilaspur, Chhattisarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 3050 of 2008 PETITIONBR RESPONDENTS Rainfal & ofhers VERSUS RamdU & ofhers (WRIT PETITION UNDERAKTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. A^rwal, J.l Present : Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Surul Tripahti, Advoeate for respondent No. 1 to 6, 8 to 10 & 12. Shri Vinod Tekain, Panel Lawyer for fhe State. 2. ^ ORAL ORDBR (Passed on 26.04.2011) The tnstant petltion fUed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legalily and propriety of order dated 28.03.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. 32/A- 23/2004-05 whereby fhe revlsion preferred by the respondents was atlowed reverstng fhe orders passed by fhe SDO, Surajpiir and Collector, Surguja. Brief facts of the case are: on petitioner's application ffled under Sectton 170-B of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code'), the SDO, Siirajpur, vide its order dated 24.03.2004 (Annexure P/2) reverted the land in petifioner's favour. Appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed by the Collector, Surguja, vide its order dated 12.10.2004 (Annexure P/3). There-against, respondents preferred a revision before fhe Board of 'c< -&C5 ^ sfc—:- "^!--v'"S'SSt-"^''' 3 Revenue. The Board of Revenue, having found, notices were not served upon (he respondents and based on material placed before it by the respondents having found Section 170-B of the Code has no application in the facts and circunistances of the case, allowedthe revision and set aside the orders passed by the SDO as well as Collector, Surguja. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit: despite service of notice, respondents did not appear in the case, the SDO has rightly passed the order 'whlch has been afllnned by the CoUector, Surguja, and tfaose orders were wrongly set aside by the Board of Revenue, therefore, the order passed by (he Board of Revenue deserves to be quashed. On the ofher hand, Shri Suiul Tripathl, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondents would submit: both fhe courts below i.e. SDO as well as Collector have passed fhe order wifhout noticing the respondents and those orders were not sustainable in law. Fiirther, fhe Board of Revenue has consldered eveiy aspects of the matter and after considering the decree passed in Civil Sult, set aside the orders passed by the SDO as well as Collector, Surguja, and fherefore order passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be upheld. I have heard fhe counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order unpugned. 'lw ,-<» SSS A bare perusal of the order passed by fhe Board of Revenue would reveal, the SDO has passed the order against fhe respondents without service of siimmons upon fhein in accordance wifh provisions contained in Section 41 of the Code. An order passed by any aufhority in violation of principles of natural justice i.e. without affording hlm opportunlty of hearing is non-est in the eye of law, fherefore, the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in setting aside the order of SDO as weU as Collector on the above ground, but, at tfae sanie tim.e, fhe Board of Revenue has exceeded in its jurisdiction in deciding fhe inatter on merits after considering the material placed on record by the respondents before hiin wifhout giving any opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioners. Once it is held that the order has been passed without issuance of notice to the respondents, the Board of Revenue should have remitted back fhe inatter to fhe SDO to decide the same in accordance with law after giving opportimlty to bofh the parties. In view of above, fhe petition is allowed. The matter is remltted back to the SDQ, Si-irajpur for deciding the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportiinlties to both fhe parties to adduce their evidences. No order asto costs. '(<• >-c3 »*.' <L'?-" ^ 8. Both fhe parties are dlrected to appear before the SDO, Surajpur, on 20.06.2011. 9. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe matter. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sah'u