N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227! No.3992 of 2008 PETITIONERI: Virendra Kumar ShUkIa S/o Late Ram Avtar (Applicant) Shukia, aged about 56 years, R/o Nehru Nagar Raipur, At present R/o M.P.H.B. Coiony Tatibandh Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Rajendra Shankar Shukia S/o Late Ram Avtar Shukia, aged about 58 years, R/o Nehru Nagar Raipur, At present R/o M.P.H.B. Coiony Tatibandh Raipur, Tahsii & District Raipur (C.G.) {Writ petitio under Article 227 of the Constitution of india} Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the respondent. ’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J W (13—7-201 1 ) 1. By this writ petitio under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, the petitioner has challenge legality and propriety of the order dated 1-5~2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) in Revision Case No.465/A-12/02—03 whereby’on the ground of non-service of notice to intereste party at the time f demarcation, the Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed in revion and remitted back the case for providing d o si opportunity of hearing to the parties. 2. l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents. 3. As per case of the parties, in the nutshell, the petitioner has filed application before the Naib Tahsildar under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for demarcation of his land in which he has not made party to the respondent or other interested persons. Thereafter, as per the revision petition filed before the Collector and the objection filed before the Naib Tahsildar, the respondent has received notice from the Patwari i.e. not from the Naib Tahsildar or the Revenue inspector, he has filed objection after the alleged demarcation and thereafter, frled revision which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Board of Revenue afte‘ryconsidering the aforesaid facts has quashed the order passed in revision on the ground that without RESPONDFNT: n Single Bench: Hon n d 2 %‘iz' é providing ()pportunity of hearing, the demarcation has been made which is illegal per se. Learned counsel for the petltloner submits that the rewslon fled on behalf of the respondent was barred by limitation and therefore the respondent was under obligation to file application for condonation of delay. On the other hnd learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that para 6 of the reVIsron petition reveals that the factum of demarcation came to the knowledge of the respondent herein only on 23-5-92 Virtually it was approved by the Naib Tahsildar only on 11-3-92 and there were three separate petitions for demarcation. As per case of the parties the petitioner & the respondent are brothers ln these Circumstances the respondent was necessary party and the petitioner was under obligation to make his brother and other persons havmg interest over the property as necessary party and Without any propriety the Patwari has given notice dated 16-1—92 to the respondent herein for demarcation of land asking the respondeht to remain present on 18- -92 The Patwari has not demarcated the land and he was not authorized by the Naib Tahsrldar This shows illegality in the proceeding The Board of Revenue has rightly set aSide the order and remitted back the case for fresh inquiry and while passmg such order the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality requrnng interference in exerCise of superVisory jurisdiction . Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- ‘ : T.P. Sharma Judge . . . ’ i,