#IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BILASPUR Writ Petition No. .2G?.7.. 0/2002 Bhajanlal Agrawal, son of Late Rammanorath Lal Agrawal, resident of New Shantinagar, Raipur (CG)- PETITIONER VERSUS ^JState of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector Raipur. 3) Collector Raipur District - Raipur (CG) ,..^.*..»^^"::^^- r ,.,. •' "ti't A.K. Verma, Special Land Record, bfficer, Collectorate Raipur. Revenue Inspector, Land Diversion of Pandri Area, Raipur. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF PRHOIBITIQN MANDAMUS ETC. AND/ OR FOR ORDERfs) AND/ OR FOR THE DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OP THE WRITS. -^M^ ^SN'^i^^^ 1^!/^/./^? Ef?S'ss^y^ssv: •S-S^—J^ ^W^N^^^wtfROT^KKSJy'j'i.: _..^^.A^,..A).^o/.. ^^-»-;. 3??^T^T^?^' 'ms aiit^l ?P:lNi' Wffll •qiN??!N tITO'S •? 1S<A I{SPSR ^sifiwwtw 16.1.2002 I Petitioner by Shri B.P.pharma, Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate. i 1 Respondent/State by Sh^i Ranbrr Singh,Qovt. Advocate with Shri Ayaj Naved. | Ki l Shri R.S.Jaiswal, leamed counsel for the Intervener who 1 is stated to be the owner of the property. Miss SharmUa Stnghai,\ leamed counsel for another J Intervener who also claims to ^e an owner of part of the Isind. Heard. I Leamed counsel for the rietitioner submits that the case is exactly similar and coverec^i by the order dated 8.12.2001 passed by this Court in Writ H'etition No. 2352/2001. I am. not going to touchiaU those pouits placed before me. The only point that has been raised before me by Shri R.S.Jaiswal is that impugned order dated 21.9.2000 was issued by the OfBcer on Speqlal Duty, Land Diversion. The Appellate Authority in the present case is Sub DMsional Officer in terms of section 44 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. i B!; ''XT-HC—7> '3~sr~"41AIICl'4, ®Ti1<L4'l<o,f^TRI^ '^9 C^^p) wn'gror ^siimsn ^- Though, the position of disputed, Shri B.P.Sharma sut^mits that.in fact review was Garried out by the Qfficer on Stjedal Duty behind fhe back of the writ petitioner and at fhe in^tance ofS.D.O., therefore, in such a case where S.D.O. sh^uld be sald to have ateady made up his mind on merit, th^re is hardly any hope for the petttioner to get remedy before t^ie AppeUate Authority. In my view, once an appeal is file<|[, the leamed S.D.0. must examme the case on merit and iJLOt on any other consideraUon that too, after aUowiag parti^? adequate opportunities of law to this regard is not being heard. According to 81 impugned order was issued tlri B.P.Sharma in fact the mamly based on certaia newspaper report, whlch is Nglply illegal. The interveners pray thatjthey be also aUowed to appear before the leamed S.D.O. to plsjce theirown respective cases. It is open to them to appear tlefore the Appellate Aufhorily who should take appropriate a^tion on request made in fhis regard. It is contended that ^ower of review is not at all conference upon the O.S.D. w^io had passed the impugned order. This subnussion is contfoverted on behalf of the State Gtovermnent in terms of SectionB 1 sub section III. Whether or ia y -HC i<.^?!:?) ^S^FP' 1 ^-•a ^iTTRW, ^ttW / 'flTC^iTVWi C^) ^•^7 ('ipqs^iT) 'N"1 2UU T^iTs?;c ^Tr^ su^ ^iz?^F^'?f Ti'i'^?T ^ T€^S'3T^^T< ^? •S{?,^T';? •^R'r3^ not there was Ulegal exercise |of power by the O.S.D. shoiild i be examined by the Appellaty Authority. In fact all points ralsed before this Court canjbe raised before the Appellate iAuthority. i In fhe Tesidt, fhis petittoujis disposed ofwifh direction that thc petitioner shall appeal befqre the teamed S.D.O. within ten days fi-om today. On receipt ol such appeal, the leamcd S.D.O. shaU proceed to decide tfae cas^ on inerit expeditiousty. Delay, if any, is condoned. | Shri B.P.Sharma, lear4ed coiinsel for the petitioner makes a prayer that certaia jinterim order may be allowed. This aspect should also b4 examined by £he Appellate Authority. However, until thfe Appellate Authority conslders and passes appropriate kiljerim 'orders, let the parties I. . maintain status quo, as it e^ists today. In ttus view of the matter, let the operation 4f the iinpugned order dated 21.09.2001be kept in abeyanjce, as it existed on 09.112001, until fhe leetmed AppeUatej Authority passes appropriate orders in this regard. A The petition is accordin^Ly disposed of. . ^ ' Certified copy as per Rules. Taktaruddin