WM ”(x Q?{cHfIM @ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C)N0. é 173% /2ou PETITIONER : Pyari Bai, W/o. Harinarayan Sahu, RESPONDENT aged about 36 years, R/o. Village & Gram Panchayat — Pahanda, Tahsil — Berla, District — Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] State of Chhattisgarh APPLICANTS Through: Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2] Collector, Durg, District — Durg (C.G.) 3] Sub Divisional Ofiicer, Saja, District — Durg (C.G.) 4] Pitamber Nishad, S/o Lati, 5] Kumar Das S/o Pardeshi Sahu 6] Rajbati W/o Purshottam 7] Satyabati W/o Vikram 8] Taran S/o Nanku 9] Uttara Bai W/o Gajanand Sahu 10] Smt. Radhika Sahu W/o Kulpat Ram Sahu 11] Pyari Bai W/o Shiv Prasad Nishad Respondent no. 4 to 11 R/o Village ~ w \ 2 @ Q Pahanda, Vikas Khand & Tahsil -— Berla, District ~ Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE \x/ ‘ N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA {M H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH 1 BELA$PUR WRH‘ PETITION §C2 NO. 688 OF 2011 (Writ Petitinn under Articke 226/227 Single Bench '. Hon’ble Shri Satish K‘ Agnihotri, J. Present :— $hri Vaibhav A. Govardhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dw‘wedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate fOf the State! respondents No.1 to 3. Shri B.P.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.4 to 11. ORDER {ORAM i (Paeeed on 13‘” day of June; 201 1) h 1. Learned oounse! appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub DMeiona! Officer (for ehort “the S.D.O,') Saja, Disirict Durg. has passed the order on 07.06.2010 (Annexure P-3) without hotding proper enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeat before the Additional Coiiector, Bemetara, District V/Durg. The Additionai Coiiector by order dated 16.09.2010 (Annexure P—S) quashed the order dated 07.06.2010, passed by the S.D.O. and remitted back the matterito consider afresh after hoiding proper enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Againet the said order, the reepondente No.4 to 11 had preferred a revision before the Commiseioner, Raipur Division, Raipur. 2. The Commissioner. after hearing both the parties, remitted back “t the matter to the Additionai Coiiector. Bemetara, setting aside the order dated 16.09.2010 (Annexure P-S), paseed by him to hear aii the concerned parties and pass the speaking order. f PETI‘HONER Pyari Bai RESPONDENT Versus RESPONDENTS Stata m” Chhattisgarh & Others APPUCANTS @ Learned counsel appearing for the peiitioner submits that the Addiimna! Col!ector had already remitted back the matter to the S.D.O'. by order dated 1609.2(310, as the order passed by the S.D.O. was not in acccrdance with iaw, without herding proper enquiry and affording an apportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the matter may be remitted back to the S.D.O. for deciding the case afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, in aooordance with prescribed procedure under iaw. Shri Sharma, learned counsei appearing for the respondent No4 to it submits that he has no objection. However, time iirnit may b be fixed, keeping in’view the fact that the matter is an oid matter and serious disputes with regard to permission or otherwise is invoived. Learned State oounsei has aiso no objection. Having regard to the facts situation of the case as atorestated, the impugned order dated 28.01.2011 is modified to the extent that the matter is remitted back to the S.DAO. Saja, District Burg to decide the case afresh in accordance with the provisions of iaw, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to ail the parties concerned and pass the order on merits within a period of three months. in View of foregoing, the writ petition is partly allowed to the above extent No order asto costs Sd/—' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok