IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. Uolfi /2009 PETITIONER/ APPLICANT ^ .^ ^•^. .^y /'" .^•^ ^ ^ ^:''.^\ ' ^'^'" ^ ^-" RESPONDENTS/ NON-APPLICANT Bhagbalj Dewangan S/o. Santram Dewangan, aged about : 53 years, R/o. Village : Chhurikala, Tahsil : Katghora, District : Korba (C.G.). r' /', '< VERSUS 1] Ratan Kumar Agrawal S/o. Bhagirathi Prasad Agrawal, aged about : Unknown, 2] Sanjay Kumar Agrawal S/o. Bhagirathi Prasad Agrawal, aged about : Unknown, Both are R/o. Jai Stambh Chowk, Katghora, Tahsil : Katghora, District : Korba (C.G.). ..., v-M^-r.-)'.- /" 3] Mahettar Das S/o. Dukalu Ram, aged about : Unknown, R/o. Village : Chhurikala, Tahsil : Katghora, District : Korba (C.G.). _ V . '^ - ^O 4] State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Revenue Department, D.K.S; Bhawan, Rgipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . ^;':F;'^'S%S?^ ^tlJ 1%3SS9^ ^r^r^rN^TO -<r^[ ^jPT!^FT, ^ft^FR', I^TRT^ a,- $ - c2-7-'7 -? ^° • M o t G J <3^ "^ 200 3H^?^^('rt^q) T SB: HON. SHRI JUSTIGtB N.K. AGARWAL Shri P.K. BhaduriJ Heard on admissicjn. The instant petiti< ^^s %^^^rR^ 3-8-2009 Shri P.K. Patel, Adjvocate, for the petitioner. Panel Lawyer, for fhe State. in is directed against the order dated 16-3-2009 passed by tljie Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh in Revision Case No. (R.N./10/R-A-07/512/2008 whereby leamed Board of Reveniiie has set aside the order dated 7-10- 2008 passed by the Coijiimissioner, Bilaspur and order dated 1-7-2008 passed by Add^tional Collector, Korba. Brieffactsoffhe ise are fhat DukalLiram, fafher of the respondent No. 3 was ywner of the disputed land. The said land stands mutated i4 the name of respondent No. 3 after his deafh and consequ^ntly, fhe revenue record also stands corrected. The dispuljed land was purchased by the respondents No. 1 an^ 2 from the respondent No. 3 vide registered sale deed da^ed 22-8-2006 and their names stand mutated in the rever^ue records. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Cdllector Korba challenging said sale on the ground that the saidj land is a Govermnent land allotted to y^T^h- <Nf^T n^m'^^r ^^MK^SK—FS/95—11 /2008—1,00,000.. .1- ^^T^ ^ ^: ^-. j '^ISI^ i l ^i.i !%,;^&^'^ ^i^r'^Tk^ iPTs^i^r^iW ./ '3^t;^TRM^, ?, tN^ray .(^t3^?) ^T^^ ^OT^? ^ ft^ Tt^K iT3ffCT3^" late Dukaluram and ti^erefore, the sale deed cannot be executed without taking l>ermission from fhe Collector. The Colleetor suo njioto initiated proceedings against the respondents No. 1 and ^ and void. The responden| the Commissioner, Bil4SPUr- The said appeal was also dismissed. Against tt| pespondentsrTsTo, 1 and ^ Board ofRevenue after rcjcording a categorical finding that the said laad was allotted as 1982 and vide order Section 165 (7B) oftheGI that fhe petitioners not has ri^itly passed th^ and declared the said sale as null :s No. 1 and 2 went in appeal before at, revision was preferred by 2 before fhe Board of Revenue. The much as 20 years before in fhe year of Tehsildar dated 22-7-97, the respondents No. 3 was djsclared Bhumiswami of the disputed land, therefore, there 4° need to seek pennission under .G. Land Revenue Code, aUowed the revision. More over, it ws|s also held by the Board of Revenue being the person a^rieved, have no right to mitiate any procejeding. I have gone carefulljy through fhe record ofthe case and the order impugned. In i4y opinion, leamed Board of Revenue order impugned. More over tiie petitioner has no intere^t over the disputed land eifher way and lise%BKS he has no loc^is standi to prefer this petition. ^"RI^? ^R K^'JiT^^ <?^Rr^ira—FS/95—11 /2098—1«00,000. ^f^^ ^'^ ^ % -ETS[ "^apTf^T, ?,'f^TRT3T ^T^r^Tf^j^ ? ^lt?T^i^(-^^^) ^mta^-•Rp^jf^ fe^'<^^r? ^ ^I^H ."Hltll Leamed counsel fori the petitioners failed to point out any Ulegality or jurisdicticjnal error in passing the fanpugned order leading to manifest jmjustice to the petitioner so as to invoke extraordinaiy jurisjdiction of fhis Court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution ofj ndia. It is weU setfled pijmciple of law that fhis Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, sh^uld refrain itself from mterfering with fhe order passed by ti where perversily, iUegality |ie Court below except in such cases or jurisdictional error is writ large on the ia.ee offhe record, ^hich is not in fhe present case. The petition is liabl^ to be dismissed and ftie same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Aganval Judge ^TlTd^ ?M^" ^JT^^ ^RKSir^—FS/95—11 / 2098—1,00,900.