c%iy' r^ ^li?-3^*' HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition Pi!o.4Sa7 of 2000 Petitipner Roopdhar Son of Subana'hu Muriya, Aged about 55 ysars, Resident of Viilage Bedagudapara, Dhaniyaiur Tahsif Jagdalpur, District BasSar, (M.P.) (Now C.G.) Versus Rssoondents 1. Commfssioner, Bastar Divlsion, Jagdalpur, (M.P.) (Now C.G.) 2. Sub Divisionai Officer (Rsvenue), Jagdalpur, District Bastar, (M.P.) (Now C.G.) 3. Bhote S/o Bhagchand Dhurwa Resident of Viliage Taraigudapara Dhaniyaiur, Tahsii Jagdaipur, District Bastar, (M.P.) (Now C.G.) 4. Bhag Chand S/o Sukh Das Dhuwa 5. Gowardhan S/o Bhag Chand Dhufwa 6. Gopi 8/0 Bhag Chand Dhuwa 7. Parbhu S/o Bhag Chand Dhunsre No. 3 to 7 Ali resident of Vfltags Dhaniyaiur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, Di'strict, Bastar, (M.P.) (Now C.G.) (Writ Petition underArticie 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Sndia) %1 n Mr.Abhishekh Sinha with Mr.Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for ths petitioner. Mr.Vinod Tekam, Pane! Lawyerfor respondents No.1 and 2/State. Mr.Keshav Dewangan, counsel for respondents No.3, 5, 6 and 7. As per information, respondent No.4 died. (SB: Hon'bis Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (1-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Articie 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the pstSioner has chaltonged ths iegaiity & propriety of th®ordsr dated 5.6.2000 passsd by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, in Review Case No. 1/8-121/99-2000, whereby wthout having any authority under fc'S Ku .-a^- -^ -7^ i.aa::-! ' (iawi '^^^^g^ Revsnue Book Circular the Commissionsr has reviewed its order datsd 9.9.99 passed in Revision Case N0.18/B-121/95-96, whereby initiaiiy ths Commissionsr, Bastar Dlvision has quashed the order dated 11.12.95 passsd by the Sub Divisiona! Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur in Revenue Case No.30/8-121/95-96. 2. i have heard tearned counsei for the parties, perussd the order impugnsd and other documents flied on behaif of ths petitioner. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that iease was aiiotted under the provisions of Revenue Book Circuiar. Thers was no provision for revisw of the order, therefore, order impugned passed by the Commissioner is iilegai. 4. On the other hand, ieamed counsei for respondents No.3, 5, 6 snd 7 opposss the pstition. 5. Virtually, ail the orders revea! that those ail orders passed by ths revenue authorities reiating to lease of agricuttural iand and the Chhattisgarh Land Revenus Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') is comptete Court gives detai! procsdure. Section 181 of the Code provides iease by Governmsnt. Revenue 8ook Cireular has not been framed under any of the provisions of iaw, therefore, Rsvsnue Book Circutar has taken asassistanoe of the Court and not against the provisions of the Code, As per Section181 of the Code, the State Govemment or the Coiiector ars ihe only competent authority for leasing the government iand, in these circumstances, uniess it is established that the powers ofthe State Govsrnmert or the Coiiactor have been de'.egated to Tahsildar or any other authority, any lease by other authority is not vaiid Isass under the !aw. 6. The Commissioner or the Sub Divisiona! Officer have not considered the aforesaid ground and assuming thst they were having Jurisdiction and havs passed the ordsrs. 7. Consequentiy, the wrtt petition is ailowsd. Ordsr dated 9.9.99 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division in Revision Cass No.18/B-121/95-96 and order dated 11 .12.95 passsd by the Sub Divisionai Officsr (Revenue), Jagdalpur in Revenue Case No.30/B-121/95-96 are hareby quashsd. Case is remitteci to the Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue), Jagdaipur for fresh consideration. Sub Divisiona! OfRcer (Revenus), Jagdaipur shali /~ }<' -. ^"s^ss decide the authority compstent to lease the iand in accordance with Section 181 of the Code and if under delegated power it find that the Tahsiidar was competent authority to leass the land under Section 181 <rf the Code, thsn decide the case afresh considering the grounfl Shat whether it was competent to pass such order as exsroising orisina! jurisdiction or sams as exercising appeiiste jurisdiction. Partiss are directed to remain present before the Sub Divisionai Officsr (Revenue), Jagdaipur on 28.3.2011 for further progress ofthe case. _ __ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •^WSSA