C^f^o^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. U?-?^ of 2009 PETITIONER Rajnandgaon Surukul Pvt. Ltd, through its birector Shri Vinay Daddha.son of Shri Jorawarmal Ji baddha, aged ^^. years, resident of Cinema Line, Ragnandgaon (C6) Vs RESPONbENTS c-^y' •.'"ll ^/^ ' <?<c" IA^ •~s ^; ^ hik) ^ ^ ^ 1. Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur through its Member. 2. Jalal Bagh Urs Committee, Parrinala, through its Secretary Mohd. Iqbal, son of Shri Ikramuddin, aged floti<i><aua-ntof(-' .;;.••'' years, resident of Parrinala Dargah Committee, Tehsil and &istr~ict Rajnandgaon (C6). 3. Saneshi Bai, wife of Sudama Sond, resident of Village o Sundra, aged -•tiotv'vusQr^ears, Tehsil <& District Rajnandgaon (C6) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Rajnandgaon. WRIT PETITZON UN&ER ARTICI..E 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER:- As per the cause title. tS:£?'?%'* '"'5''"^ |%ag&s|g It. ^^./ "gfs' £^7-X!-HC—78 c;v ^5T ~-t|!4]id<l, Qfll'H'Ko, T^TRTg? i^ f Cc) /./o . (^ gl^t^ ^ aTTOIqiI-f^W ^qian^'na^fN;! flfc-Horrtrte-Stgniistic^WK: +Wi!-t4'W ^TO?ff •?fe3t Tf^TC A'Sffetl 3ffl^T Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, courlsel for the petitioner. IVis. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Ljawyer for the State. Heard on admission. The instant petition fiied b^ the petitioner under Article f.26/227 against the inaction on the jsart of the Board of Revenue in |iot deciding the petitioner's obje4tion on 13-08-2009 is under j;haltenge. The brief facts according tfy the petitioner are that the |3etitioner after obtaining permisslo(i under Section 165(6) of the p.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (f()r short 'the Code') purchased (he disputed properi:y from respjsndent No.3. Against that, [•espondent No.2 filed an appeal jiefore the Board of Revenue ;hailenging the legality and propri^ty of the order passed under iection 165(6) ofthe Code claiming|its title in him. The said appeal js/as dismissed by the Board o| Revenue. Thereafter, the [•espondent preferred a review appl|cation under Section 51 of the ;ode which was also dismissed ipplication for review. but again he preferred an XI-HC—78 3'r^f +' ••qraiC-R, tSTTRFT^, W' Uf(;C) /V». ^^ SLt? ") iia< «n sn^s ^raffiTiTsn^i The petitioner appeared before the Board of Revenue on 06- 08-2009 and then filed written objection on 13-08-2009 chatlenging the maintainability of the second ri Kvr Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since second review appllcation is not maintain^ble, the Board of Revenue ought to have decided the objection oft|ie petitioner expeditiously, Having heard learned couijise! for the petitioner and having perused the record, i am of the disposed of with a direction to th^ Board of Revenue to decide the objection filed by the petitioner | within a period of 15 days from tlj its own merit in accordance with liw. With the above direction, tti disposed of. Certified copy as per ruies. sview petition. ODinion that this Detition can be as early as possible preferably e date of receipt of this order, on e petition filed by the petitioner is Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge rr