ff^ri'^'T /'T'~yA^ \-~~".-. HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WJ.(Ct MO. 3742 OP 2011 PBTITIONBR RE8POHDENT VBRSU8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Shaakar Lal, S/o Bhudeyal, Caste - Chaadranaliu, aged. abo'ut 47 years R/o ViU^e Amakoni, Tahsfl Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.). Rajesh Kumar, S/o Dewtiarayaa Chaadra, aged about 30 years, Heiacharan, S/o Deviimayaa, aged about 21 years, nuaor fhrougli brofher Rajesh Kuinar, Boih R/o Chhirradih, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgtr-Chanipa (C.G.). Hetram, S/o Bhudayal ChMidra, aged about S8 years Shambhudayal, S/o BhiBdayal Chandra, aged about 44 years UttaEakuiaar, S/o Bhud^al Chaadia, aged about 40 ycars, Petitioners no. 3 to 5 are R/o ViBage Amakoiu, Tahsil .Jaijalpur, District Janjgir-champa (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough thc CoBector, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Chainpa (C.G.). Sub-Dlvisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti, DistrictJanjgir-CItampa(C.Cr.). WMT PETITIOH UNDBR ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CON8TITUTION OP'IBDIA. (8B :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Rresent:- Shri Harishankar Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondenta No. 6 8s 7. Respondents No. 1 to 5 not notioed. ORAL-ORDER (Passedoa 14/07/2011) By this petitfon uiider Ardcle 226/227 of thc Constitution of ladia petitioner has challenged fbe legaUly and propriety of the ordcr dated 4{ 4/2011 passed by Sub-Diyfaioiial Officer (Revenuc), Sakti, Distrtet Janjgi&Chainpa (C.Q.) in Revenuc Case No. 99/A-6/07-08. Order impugned reveals that inittaUy wde orcter dated 25/2/2011 p^sed by Sub-Dwisioaal Officer (Revenue), Sakti has remaaded ffae case fhereafter when it conacs in thc notice on the basis of applfcation fited on cv'^ z- 3. 4. -'ll -. behalf of the respondents fhat AppeUate Court is not coinpetent to remand fhe casc iu tenns of Section 49(3) of ChIiattisgaA Land Revenue Code, 1959 (ia short 'fhe Code') then vide order uapugncd he has stayed the further procecdings before fhe Additional Tehsildar ia fhe Ught of reinaad order during pendcncy of sccond appeal filed by respondents bcfore the Second Appellate Court. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat Snb-Dlvisional Officer was uot coinpetent to pass such order of staying the case pendiag before fhe Additional Tehsildar. On thc other hand, leamed counsel for the. State/respottdents No. 6 & 7 opposed the petition. Botti the orders reveal that iaitialty Fu-st AppeBate Authority has reinanded fhe casc but subsequent to such order in fhc Bght of Section 51(3) af the Code, he has passed thc aforesaKl order of stay in thc Ught of order passed by it Alfhough, Appellate Authorily was not coinpetent to pass such order undcr Sections 49 & 52 of fhe Code but fhis is an order in exaFeise of mherent power available to it uuder Sectioa 32 of thc Code wifh a view to prevent the abuse ofprocess ofCoiut ta fhc Mght oforder passed by Appellate Authority which was without jurisdictioa, I do Hot find any iUegaHty requaring aay iatcrference in estercisc of writ jurisdiction. Consequenfty, petition is Mable to bc dfemKsed aad is hereby distnissed. No order as to coste. Sd/- TR.Sharma Judge