^ ^\^ BE%RE TOE_H tSL^ HIGH Q3U RT O F JUEEE CjffU® Jfff BIL J6PU R jL&Sa.l J-.. s P3TITIONBR RSSPONG^TS z^..^'.. lf:s-:>^ ...^^•"" ».^^*^<p.^-" f^y'....-"" .Y'^ A® /' WMT PBTITIQN N0, ^$T3/_/Q3 phulkumzA W/3 HatMran alia^ Qlnesb Kimar sorx of Dasarath prasad resldeit of NAgar Band Tahsil TakhApur Qi^trict Bllaspur C.G. vsasus 1« The Boardof Revaiue afc Bilaspur ( C.G.)< 2 , aie Sub DlvisicsaaL Offlcer Kota Dlgtt, Bllaspur C.Go 7 3« L—--.— Kadln Bai wife of Chanaru I^i resld%it of Charana Tah. Tdchafcpur Ettstrlct BJlaspur (C.G.) PSTITIONUNQ3R ARriQLSS 2.%722^ O? IHS GDNSTITUTION OF iNiaA S3R 03 ^HSMG IHE 08S&R DXTSD;20,05,2003 P^SSD @f SHHt NS^SSM SINGH, M^IBBR , VD^KQO^ RB1\®1\UB ETLJ6PUR (C»G*) ^}D GIV3KG »PHOPRIMS Q^^RJ^JS^S^l^ow,HMQM'o^£_^^^^^^. ^•-- HIGH COURT OF CHHATT13GARH AT BiLASPUR Sench: Hon'bSe Shri Justice PrashantKumarNishra PETITIONER Writ Petitlon No.2531 12003 PhuSkumars Vsrsus The Board of Revenue arid othere. Shrs Ram Kumar Tm-Sin,, counsel for the pet^oner. Shri R.R. Slnha, PanaS Lawyer for the Stata^espondent No.2. Nonefor respondent No.3. PETSTiON UNOER ARTIGLE 227 OF THE CQNSTSTUTION OF iNDiA ORALORDER (23.QS.2010) Petltioner has the order by the Board of Revenye &n 208'' May. 2003 (Annexure P/1). (2) On the of respondent No. 3 Kamin Bal the TahsiSdar TaRhatpur, Dlstrict - BISaspur passed an order for her In ttie revenue records pertaining to ttse subject Husban^ of Uie present moved an before the Sub Dlvlsional Offieer, (Revenue) Kota, whtch on 14-02-2CK)3 (^ne>aire P^. By this order the to the Tahsltdar for afresh. (3) The respondent No, 3 a revlslon betbre the Boanl of Revenue, which has allowed by the irnpugnsti wittiout Issuing to the petitloner. (4) Learned counsel for the p^eQtloner wouid submit that the order by the Board of Revenue is In vloSation of Princlptes of Justice and the not to th'e — (5) 50 of Chhaltssgarh Land R'evenue Code, 1959 ffof 'ffis Cocse') confers revlsional on ^e Board ^ Revenue. Proviso (ili) to "^m^. - ^^ sub Sectlon (1) of Sectlon 50 prcmdes that no be v-arisd or reversed In revlsion uniess notice has bsen sewed on the parties interested and opportunlty ylven to them of (6) Qn perusa! of the orijer passed by the Board of Revenue it wouSd appear from paragraph 2 thereofthat the BoaRi hearing Itie revision on It proceeded to the revlsion IteeSf to the petltioner. It In 3 of Ihe Impugned order that slnce there is an apparent iStegaltty In tfie order pas^d by the -Sub Dlvlslonai Officer, there is no requirement of issulng notsce to the petttloner. (7) The exeretse of revlsionaS power by ttie Board of Revenue is In clear bre-ach of the statutop/ provision contained in proviw (iit) sub Section (1) of Sectlon SO of the Code. The Impugned order eannot be sustained sn |aw, ftie sarne desen,'^ to be and is hereby set-assde. (8) The is The Board of Revenue shall now re-hear ttie revision after tssulng notice to both ttie partses.r Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge (^ ^