CF- ^-pe ^-3 CY IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fC) No. l^n /2007S.B. PETITIONER ^ f' ^^ ..>^r •--%^" /--Chandu Lal S/o. Samaliya Caste- Gond, . i aged about- 45.years R/p.- Dhaurabhata, P.C. No, -21, Tahsil Patan, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT .1; ^.QS 't -3' a._- ( .S .o'-l-' ' f 4^ 1 ^ ^f t">'^'^ /- "^y ^.0'" .,«-<° •c::'s G\?"" / Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur State of Chhattisgarh, Through: - Revenue, Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^APARNA^ ^.'3^U \flVfi ^.csygoTsige^- ^/\^.jt(JHy/y/ /'_ • ,^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR OUASHMENT OF THE ^^^. ORDER AND TO PASS ANY APPROPRIATE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS. I hfi6H OMJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fC) No.1319<rf2007 Petitioner Chandu Lal Versus Respondents Boare! <rf Revenus & another SB: Hon'bte Mr. JusUce Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri C. R. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Sunite Jain, Panel lawyer (br the re^»ondenis. ORDER ( Passed on this 8th day of March, 2007) The following order of <he Court is (assed by Safish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. This petjtion, fited under Articte 227 of the ConsBtitfon of India, chaltenges the order dated 14.2^007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Appeal No. 05/RA-67iQ49/2006. 2. The petifioner was found guitty of iltegal nuning a/S 486 metric tone of lime stone on the Government land, the mining licence <rf which was ghren to Ku. Ansuiya Bai. residence of vUlage- Dhorabhata for ttie period 4.3.1998 to 3.3^003. The Mining tnspector, after having visited the site submttted his report on which a show cause notice was served on the p^itiorwr. Accordingly, the Additional Collector, Durg having examind the facts and circumstances of the case order dated 22^^004 passed in a Revenue Case No. 79/A-67/2000-01, imposed a penalty of Rs. 38880/-. 3. Ths petifoner, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.25004, preferred an appea! before the Board <rf Revenue. The Board <rf Revenue after having considered all the facts and cu'cumstances of the rase, uphekl the order passsd by the CoUector and imposition of the penalty under sedion 247(7) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. Accordingly, Uie awaal filed ty 8ie peffioner was dismissed vide impugned orcter dated 14^2.2007. A ,? 4. I have heard learned counsel for the partiw and have gone through the documerts appended therdo. On perusal 1 do not find any Wtegal/Sy and infirmity. 5. It is weU sdtted principte of law that this Court while exercising Bs jurisdJctKm under Arttele 227 of the ConsKufion of India has limited jurisdBSai to ttie extent of reviswing the case, in the event, there is perwreify, irregularity or jti^jaiify in Uie process of decision, not in the decision itsetf. 6. !n viev/ of the decision <rf Hon'bte the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others { (2W3) 6 SCC 675}, it 's also well setfied princ4ile of law ftat under Artkde 227 of Bie ConstituSon of IncKa, this Court has jurisdiction ofjudidal review of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, in Uie event fiiere is manifest and appssertt error on the face of the proceedings based on the elear ignorance or utter disregwd to the provisions of law or ftere is grave failure of jusfee or grave iigusCce has occasioned ttierety. 7. None of the above grouncte are availabte to ttre peSlionet. The petitlon is devoid of merit. whteh deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, summarily. Consequently, M(W)P No. 884/2007 stands dismissed. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge