"^ €2 1 COURT OF AT ' Wrst (Cl No.7384 of 2009 Pststioner Stwar Ram Yadav, aged about 60 Applicarst ' years, S/o Late Gays Ram Yadav, Resident of Village Dheiwadlh, Post Katghora, DJstrict Korba (C.G.) Respondents Non-appjjcants Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Sscretary, Revenus and Calamity Management Department, D.K.S. B'nawan, Raspur (C.G.) 2. Gayasuddin Son of Hemuddln, Resldsnt of VISSage Dei-wadlh Project, Talisil Katghora, Dsstrict Korba (C.G.) Petltion under Artlcie 226/227 ofthe Constjtution of India) EVIr.Vishnu Koshta, counset forthe pstitionsr. Mr.Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.t/State. None present for respondent No.2. (SS: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) GRDER (28-9-2011) Bythis writ petitlon under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India the petitioner hss chaiienged the iegality & propriety of the order 4.8.2009 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.1/Secretar3f', Revenue and Caiamity Management Department, §n Revenue Case No.F-10-14/2001/inspection, whereby the respondent r'lo.1 has affirmed order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the Commissjoner, Bslaspur Divislon, Bliaspur, In Appea! Case N0.241/B-121/99-2000, order dated 3.4.2000 passed by the Coiiector, Korba, in Revenue Appeal Case No.20/B~121/98-99 and order dated 18.1.99 passed by the Sub Djvisionai Offlcer, Katghora IR Revenue Case i^o.76/3/121/96-97, whereby Eease of the iand granted by the TahslSdar, Katghora has been canceiled by the Sub DlvjslonaS Officer, Katghora. ^.1 8 ^rfi^i I ^ t ''^ -^y ''"s"^-... 1"^^' "WL^^ssy Q^f -s_ 2. I have hsard iearned counse! for the petitioner and perused ths order Impugned, other orders and docurrients flied on behalf of ths petltioner. 3. As psr clause 7(1 ) of deed of the iand granted ,by the Tahsjidar, Katghora which has been canceiied by the Sub Djvislonat Offlcer, Katghora, in case of any transfer by ssie or mortgage or sub- iease, aforesaid transfer wouid be in effectjvs/lilegai. As per order of ths Sub Djvlsional Offlcer, Katghora, on the ground of transfer of property by the petitloner, iease has been canceited. 4. Lease was not granted by the Sub Divjslonaj Officer, Katghora but was granted by the Tahsildar, Katghora. ifthe alleged transaction of was in effective/'illegal in the light of the iease deed, then there was no propriety for canceliation of such lease deed, that too without providing opportunjty of hearing to the party, whlch cieariy reveajs that the Sub Divlsionaj Officer, Katghors has commltted jurisdlctlonaS error whiie passing such order and also committed iliegaiity by not providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. . Consequentiy, the 'writ petltlon is aliowsd and orders dated 4.8.2009, 17.4.2001, 3.4.2000 and 18.1.99 are hereby quashed. Case-ls remltted to the Court of the Sub Djvislonal Officer, Katghora. The Sub Djyislonal Offjcer, Katghora shall decide the matter afresh and aiso declde the question of maintainabiiity of proceeding before it or cempetency of the Sub Dlvislonal Officer for cancellatlon of isase deed granted by the Tshsiidar. Parties are dlrsctsd to remain present before the Sub Divisionai Officer, Katghora on 22J1.2Q11 forfurther proceeding ofthe case. No order ss to costs. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ^