HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W REVIEW PETITION N0. 103/2010 Petitioner: 0 1. Hiru Pachkod S/o Lats Rajaram Pachkod r Aged about 68 years R/o Tilu‘apara, Raipur Raipur ('I‘eh & Dist). CG Stam. M.P. Aluminum Industries (A Parmemhip Firm) Thmugh Shli Smtosh, Govind, Prembai Son of Shri Kriparam Sahu, Rlo .Baijnathpara, Raipur (Tall 8n Dist. ) CG Statc. I 2. Govind Sahu, S/o Shn' Kriparam Sahu, Aged about 52 years, R/o Baijnathpam, Raipur(CG) _ . 3. Latcluram, S/o Shri Sarha Sonkar, Aged ' about 80 years, R/o Lakhe Nagar,‘ Raipur ('I‘ah an Dist) CG State. , Resimndents: APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 4t 8[QOIO PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. ]Cl 1227] NO 2977/2010. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri KR. Nair, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed; 7 ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 31/08I2010) mp Heani. Onier dated 4/8/ 20 10 passed By this Court in W.P. ( C) No. 2977/ 2010 perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submite that while passihg the oxder dated 4/8/2010 certam appa'ient mistakes appear in the Older impugned. Ordet specially . 'Boaxd of Revenue has not mviewed the order but has mvised the order. Additional Tahsildar has not passed order . but has sought permission for mview on the gmund of inquixy report. It is further submits that Board of Revenue was competcnt to pass any other onier specially relating to mutation and mutation of legal mpresentatives of Rajaram Pachkod. Learned counsel for the pe1i1ionor further submits that petin'oner has not yed mvicw an order but has rayed quashmen the order. Learned counsel fo th petitioner placed relnc in the tter of Wk Oil mus Ltd v. 3.8. eputy al By AIR 4 ha p o h t ma M D Commissioner of Ses Tm omba reported in M 1963 sc s3 (v 55 c 171) in which Apex Court s held that Whenever a ower is conferred on an authority t revise an order, the autority is entitled to examine he correctness; legality and propriety of the onier and to pass such suitable orders as the authority may think m in th circumstes of the particular case before it. Learned counsel for the petitione further placed reliance in the matter of stm o Um. an other v. Radha Others reporein (200 1 SCC 52 in which Ape r Court has held that While dealing wh the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of dia Supre. Court has he tha in absece of any praer .for ch relief any aditional direcon issued y the Hig ouron assumption was uncald for. / Present petition was under Article 227 of the Constitutio h of India in hich this ourt is ha survisory jurisdiion ove the Court and Tribunals subordinat to it Dennitely, Revisional Cours are competent to exmi the pra y p gof r e iae e anc r f d s «ml td‘ 4) 3 8 x it In em ld t n y su . d ti b h Ct le n w . C vmg pe ct r e t ane legality and pmpxiéty of the order so revised and pass suitable order but that too permissible under the law. Pmscnt petition was not undcr Article 226 of the, Constitution of India therefore case of state of UgPW o is distinguishable on the grounds of %cts. While tevising the order Boani of Revenue under obligation to decide the case in accondance with law but Bomd‘ oi Revenue has committed an illegality while revising the cider except the word reviewing in Pam‘4 of the cider, which is a clerical enor, l do not nnd any gtound for review of the order dated 4/ 8/ 2010. Consequently, review petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. V Sd/— , r T.P. Sharma Judge ’L 2‘m, '.'... ViV/,/}E’~ ‘ ,gayt ‘ ’