HIGH COURT OF CHEAHiSGARH: BiLASPUR Writ Petition No. 2716 pf 200S PET1TIONER NON-APPLICANT Versus Balam Sai, son of Thakur Ram, aged about 60 years, resident of Viiiage Nakna, Mohaiia Majhapara, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (CG). Ram Narayan, son of Lakhan, resident of Viltage Nakna, Mohalla Majhapara, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja, C-G. Postfororder ^3^4-2007 Sd/- SatishKAgnihotri Judge HJGH CQURT OF CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2716 of 2006 PETI *m^i'8=/-»r-.f-h.iTrf*nitSi Versus ^i~*-ii^i"lili Balam Sai, son of Thakur Ram, aged about 60 years, resident of Village Nakna, Mohalia Majhapara, Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (CG). Ram Narayan, son of Lakhan, resident, of Village Nakna, Mohaiia Msjhapara, Tahsii Surajpur, District Sarguja, CG. (Petition under Articte 227 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihot Present: Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan,counse! for the respondent. -f? (Passed on A 3." Aprii, 2007) iy t'nis petition filed undsr Articie 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner chailenges the legality and vaiidity of the order dated 27-5-2005 (Annexure P/8) passed by Naib Tahsildar, Surajpur, the order dated 16-12-2005 (Annexure P/9) passed by Additional Collector, Surajpur, Ambikapur, confirming the order passed by Naib Tahsiidar and the order dated 2-5-2006 passed by the Board of Revenus (Annexure P/10), confirming the order dated 27-5-2005 (Annexure P/8) passed by Naib Tahsiidar, Surajpur as v»'e!i as the order dated 16-12-2005 (Annexure P/9) passed by Additiona! Coiiector, Surajpur, as not being in accordance with iaw. i'1Tli?;^~^?i»RK'( 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent made an application before Naib Tahsildar, Surajpur, under Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "the Code") seeking right of way on the disputed land where the petitioner and one Lalit Ram Rajwade had constructed wail to obstruct the route of the respondent to have access to his field. Naib Tahsildar, vide his order dated 27-5-2005 rejected the application hoiding that the suit filed by the petitioner before Civil Judge, Class II, Surajpur, for the same dispute and no order in the appiication under Order 39, Ru!e 1 & 2 of the Code of Civi! Procedure was passed. Thus, the Revenue Authority, cannot pass the order directing th& petitioner to remove the wai constructed on the disputed route. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additionai Coltector, Surajpur. The Additional Collector, Surajpur, vide his order dated 16-12-2005 (Annexure P/9) dismissed the revision holding that the Naib Tahsildar has not committed any mistake in passing the order. There was no ground to interfere with the order dated 27-5-2005 (Annexure P/8) passed 'oy Naib Tahsildar. 4. Bsing aggrieved and dissatisfled with the order passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner fiied a revenue revision under Section 50 of the Code before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 2-5-2006 after havina considered all the aspects of the matter held as under and dismissed the revision.; 7W ^ ';?TTI "S"<TO tisr ^ tepr sr^razRTTsrr grcr !P THf ^t iWtoTT ^ TFR f^TT ^PTTi 3Tf^{^RT q'^d'hi'i, 'H'i^ull ^ TRi5^T % 149/3T-13/2004-05 TpT 7I fl^'a'Kylci!';, '<I'HI'1,U1-1'II'< ^ 7q57DT ^Brtqi 03/3T-13/2004-2005 ^ ^ f^OTSf ^T ipfrraT ^ 31SZPP7 f^I?T TpTTI 3Tf?rRcRT cprtW; ^ ST^ Mu,^" '^ f^^r •^ ^ sra?TT •^iiiitoi^ ^r wrl?i^r wsit 'i^ qsrri'ra? ^T^ f^sff q?r ^rrar f^zrT t TP.TT ^Trqcr d^tfid^!\' sxr 7-c-.' 'Bsas^sSBmmnllB'1; •'>- ^ ^t ~^ TI^ cpl4c!l6] ~^ "yi^ioiyi ^ WIT 11 'Sftt SI^WT ^ ?^PT f^n ^rr 'a^ni t ~s\s, ^ 'IN^ ^nf^ra? v •aa3TRTR5 ^t ?t i sn^?cp -c^ gfK ^ 7ras ^ WT? ??? 7q?K ^PT ^N 'S^T ^lPl* '9R 1^ 'ITT 'cRZT ^ siodl^ll -;TOT t ST^ TT €t^?TT f^P SRltei; ^ f^T^ ST^iqcmi ^ 3"T^ ^ -E^ ^TO ?Tg <s!tjri|4|| t fSti .STRrf^T '*"iW'i ^ 3TI^5T ^ qZTT aSi'&llPlcbdl t, ^T ;?NET ^ 3Tl^?q5 q^ qT5 f^^ sRT^TR ^ 'FW-1 •:^T 11 ycb't"! 'cFT W1TT ^T -?i ^gW 'r 'cf^ -E^ 'q^rra' sw?' cbc'ltri'i, •WtW '^ 149/3T-13/2004-2005 ^ ?TR?T 3TT^r f^'ii'cfi 16. 12.2005 f r ww wrr ^TT?TT €SRS'- '3% Ra-R 'TOT •3n?Tr t i yt^s-i yTftgW M>;w f^IT 'OTaT 11 5. The petltioner has fiied this petition impugning ths above stated orders passed by the Revenue Authorities whereunder the Revenue Authorities deciined to remove the atleged wail constructed over the route land on which the petitioner is claiming right of way. 6. Admittediy, Civi! Suit No.51-A/2005 (Balam Sai Vs. Ram Narayan and another) for permanent injunction was pending consideration before Civil Judge, Ciass !!, Surajpur, and the Revenue Authorities having exereised their jurisdiction under Section 131 came to the conclusion that for the same relief to remove the wall, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 ofthe CPC and no order was passed on the said appllcation. Thsrefore, the Revenue Authorities did not find 'rt proper to pass any order whlch may amount to over-reaching the jurisdiction of the Civi! Court. Even otherwise, the Revenue Authorities, whiie exercising their pov/er have to find out that the essentiat fact that has to be pleaded and proved that the right of way ciaimed is a customary right exsroised openiy and without obstruction othenivise than by Dermission. The Tahsildar is required to decide t'ne same with reference to custom and convenience of ai! parties concerned. The facts are disputed as maps filed by the Authorities are also contradictory, therefore, it is necessary that the dispute should be resoived by the Civil Court after examining the documents and other evidences adduced before the Civil Court. * 7. t have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the plsadings, documents and the impugned judgment appended thereto. ! do not find any infirmity, iilegality or jurisdictional srror in the impugned judgment'order passed by the Revenue Authprities. 8. lt is well settled principie of law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of Sndia, this Court has jurisdiction of judicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on th& ciear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of iaw or there is grave failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this Court can aiso entertain the petition in its supervisory jurisdiction if there is peroersity, irregularity or illegaiity in the process of decision, not in the decision itself. 9. Applying the above settied principles of iaw to the facts of the present case, it does not warrant an interference with the decision passed bv the Court beiov/. 10. Thus, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Raju Sd/- SatishKAgnihotn Judge