IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATFTSGARH AT BILASPUR ’§§q w.P.(227)No.V_S§:5_\i1 0f 2010 K / Manrakhan Sahu S/o Shri Vikram Sahu, aged about 57 years, R/o Dhadhutola(Bandhabazar) DiStt ”@if Wm PETITIONER: NON-APPLICANT Village Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, Rajnandgaon C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Badri Prasad Sharma, R/o Village Dhadhutola (Bandhabazar) Tahsil Ambagarh . Chowki, Distt Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2) Board of Revenue Through its Member, Circuit Court (C.G.) Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA g; ( HEGH SGURT GF $HHWW2$¢ARH i“ $§LA5§L§R Writ ?e”{i"{§on {22?} Na. 583A of 2m a PETE‘HQNEE ManraKhaa 5am; versus RE$PONEE§§T3 Mahendra Kumar Sharma & anoiher‘ wm PETiTmm umER ARTmLggw m Thai camwmmw 0;: mmA {53: Hm’bie NE; MK. émarwaL st; Present . Mr Maris eK a ama cevmsezfgrme pntnoner i‘’!’ ,Mbp Ma=uwdan cawrmf" mwr‘nwr" M; 1 GRN‘ ORDER i15362911} With the consant of the partias! ihe mattar §$ mam finauy. 1 tnsiant sstt'itien cai‘ia in quesiéen ihe 2egatity and pmmiety 0f ihe WW €4a eA 1R“ Vgrc 29(18 passed by Beard af Revsaue P Revi$i0n CaSe Na. RNf15iR/A—66f1254m06 whereby manandeni MAE {ravigion has been a§towed and the orderS'pa$$ed by We facidiiiona: Csi§&ci0r as we“ a3 Naib Tahsi§dar have beea set asida uwi 2. $161; facts Gf the case are as undar : Kalb an'szdar arantF pai‘m 0f dispu’zed md in peiitiener’s‘; favaur KPgponder‘r Ne 4! n“ 1emed ‘iw same bv fiimg a reviaw wiztmr‘ 09mm The Nash :am’dar or; ihe around mat tue avgwked ‘awd magi girgady haw a chad *0 h m ml 3%? Re‘renw Authdrweax 1 x the yaar ’196‘i—82. The abave review pe‘iitian was di$mi$$eda by Naib Tahgiidar haiding tha§ ha has no gufisdiotion £0 reviaw hi5 awn order. The abave Omar was a'fr‘irmad by the Sub Civisicnai Officar as we” am Add‘rronar Cailecmr Ra‘nandjaan than: agamsi we ras mwm; Na: 1 prmarrad a re~ km befara We Baard ugverue Board 0r Rgvanug ahawM im revigian ahd 36f: agide tha order$ 9f i! rm suh—Qrdmare re» hug grumartres hardrm fha: We smears; have Qeem ,QWHG w‘rhow ancrdmg apportum‘cy ca v q hearing is the respenéent No. 4. whG is a person iniaresiad in ihe suit Sand. 3. Ccunsei $‘0r the petitmner wouid submit: once it ha$ been hekj by the Board of Rex/anus, that the orde{ shouid have been waged after hearing ‘the mspendent NM, Baard 01" Revenue ahouéd have ramanded back the mai‘te? is the Naib Teheildar for hear§ng ihe waiter afresh, He further eubmiis mat as the Board 0f Revenue has net remanded bask the matter fm decasion afresh; arder impugned suffers from jurisdie‘ikanai inega‘liiy and deserves t9 be set asieie. 4. On rhe other hand, 3m Mejumdar, couneei for respeneem l Nor ’i \Nourd submit thai the Beard er' Revenue has rightiy passed the order impugned ae the iand was in eoeeessieri of the respendeni‘ N01. 5‘ i have heard ihe counsei apeearing fer éhe petitioner and eerused ihe arder imeugned. 6. viiiihoui enterieg inte the meriie ef ihe ease, eur’ice ii ta say mat when’iihe Beerd of Revenue has heid: revenue autheritiee have paesed the order wiihout hearing respondent Nari, it eheuid have remanded beeir the meter to Nieb Tahsiidar for decieion afresh after hearing both the parties and, therefore, in the coneidereci opinien 0t this Court order suffers frem jurisdictional errorr 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinebeve, the petition ie eliowect. Order impughed dated 183.20% peeeed by Board of Revenue ie set aeide and the matter 5e remanded beck to the ‘r‘eheitdar, embegerh Chowki, Distrrot Rejnandgeon to deeiee the matter etreeh after affording fun opportunity of hearing “to both the parties i'o accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Nai‘o Tensitdar, Ambegerh Chowki on 2i?“ Juty, 2M? . Pertiee ehaii beer their own ooete'. v o sd/- N.K. Agrawa‘ Judge