fi" 'Wh r'1E'l'?7^rL[;t ;^ ^r^l^ '^iJC^^ 35 ilOHCOURTOF WATBIL Writ PetiSion (Art.227) No.2302of 2008 PetitiGners Non-appiroants 'l. 2. Yogendra Kumar Sshu, S/o Late Naval Kishore Sahu, aged about 45 yaars, Surendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Lats Navai Klshors Sahu, aged about 30 ysars, Both R/o Pakhnags8a, Jagdsipur, Distt.BasSar (C.G.) Versus Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Cirouit Court, Jagdalpur The Additional Co!isctor, Jagdaipur 3. The Sub-Divislonat Officer (Rev.), Jagdaipur 4. Sukhram S/o Budhu Muriya, R/o Amaguda, Jagdaipur, Distt.Bastar (C.G.) (Writ Petition undsr Artteie 227 ofthe Constitution of india) h4r.Prafui! Bharat, counsei for the petitioners. Mr.Sumit Jhanwar, Pane! Lawysr for respondents No.2 and 3/Siate. Mr.Soura&h Sharma, counsel for rsspondent No.4. (SB: Hon'bis Mr. T.P. Sharma, «i.) ORDER (7-9-2011) 1. By this wrii pstition under Articie 227 of the Consiitution of india the petitior.srs havs chailenged the iegaiity & propriety of the order dsted 27.12.2007 (Annexure P/8) passsd by the 3oard of Revenue, Biiaspur, Cireuit Court, Jagdaipur !R Revision Revenue Case No.RN/01/R/A- 23/443/2007, whersby the Board of Revenus has dsrecieis ths Colisctor/Additiona! Coiiectorto reviewthe orderdated 20.3.1968 passed by ifs predecessor in office. 2. I have heard iearned counsei forthe parties, perused the ordsr impugnsd, othsr orders and applicstion flied on behaif ofthe petliioners. 1-T ~T'r u .,«' pf Xr-Bc/ ^- 3. Seetion 51 of the Chhaitisgarh Land Revenue Cods, 1959 (for short 'Code') provides ths provision for revisw the orders which reads as under:- "51. Revenue of orders.(1) The Board and every Rsvsnue Officsr may, efther on its/his own motion or on the appiicstion of any party intsresied review any order passed by itseif/himseif or by any of its/his predecessors in offics and pass such ord^s. in refersnce thereto as WhQ thinks flt; Frovidsd that- (i) if the Setttemsnt Commissioner, Collector or Ssttisment Officer thinks ii necessar/ to ravisw any ordsr which he hss not himseif passed, he shaii flrst obtain the ssnction of the Board, and if an offlcer subordinate to a Coiiector or Settisment Officer proposss to rsview sny ordsr, whsther passed by himseif or by any predecessor, he shaii first obtain the sanction in wrifing of any authoriiy to whom he is immediateiy subordinate; no order shaii bs varied or rsversed uniess notics has been (1-3} given to the psrtles interested to appear and bs heard in support (") O") of such ordar; RO ordsr from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subjsct &f any revision procesdings shaii, so iong as such appeai or procsedings are pending be reviewed; no order affeciing any question of right between private persons shai! be reviewed except on the appiication of a party to the proceedings, and no applicaiion for ths review of such order shai! be entertained uniess it is rrsade within ninety days from the passing of the order. (2) No order sha!! be reviewed sxcept on ihe grounds providsd for In the Code of Civli Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). (3) For the purposes of this seciion ths Coilscior shaii be deemsd to be the successor in office of sny Rsvenue Officer who has left the district or who has ceased So exerciss powsrs as a Revenue Officsr and to whom there is no successor in the district. -3 (4) An order whteh has been dealt in appeai or OR rsvislon shaii not be reviewed by any Rsvenue Officer subordsnate to the appeiiate or revisional auihoriiy." 4. in accordance with Section 51 (1) (i) ofthe Code, the Coiisctor/Additionai Coilector is compeient to review its own order, but if ihe order is not passed by the Coilector/Additionai Coliector, then he is required to o&tasR sanction of the Board and thereaftsr review the ordsr. 5. in the present case, the Coiiector/Addstionsi Cotlector has not appiied for sanction/permission to review' ths order daisd 20.3.1968, but the Board of Revenue has dirsctsd for revisw of its own ordsr and has sanctioned for revsew. Board of Revenue was noi empowered to grsnt such permission or to dirsct ths Coiiector/Additionai Coiisctor for review without any appiication for sanction on behalf of th®Coilsctor/Additiona! Coliector. Order impugned passed by ths Board of Revsnue is perae iiiagal and is not sustainabie under the law. 6. in exercise of super/isory jurisdiction, ths writ petition te aiiowed. Ordsr dated 27.12.2007 (Annexurs P/8) passed by ihe Board of Revenue is hersby quashed. Case is rsmittsd to the Board of Revenue for rehearing and passing the ordsr afresh. Parties are directed So remain pressnt before the Board of Revenue on 18 October, 2011. No order as to costs. _.—._———-- Sd/- T.P Sharma Judge /