•^ »• i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (0 No.3073 of 2011 PETITIONER: Mukesh Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, by Occupation Advocate, S/o Someshwar Nath Singh R/o Prema Bag, Ward No.13, Jail Road, Baikunthpur Distt. Koriya RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rsiipur 2. The Collector, Distt. Koriya, Baikunthpur 3. Sub Divisional Officer (R)/Nazul Officer, Baikunthpur Distt. Koriya. 4. Tahsildar, Baikunthpur Distt. Koriya. {Writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. SJngle BenchLHon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (17-8-2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety ofthe order dated 30-5-2011 passed by theSub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur in RevenueCase No.02/A-20(4) 2010-11, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has denied the claim of the petitioner for allotment of unoccupied land. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copies of other applications and order sheet. 3. In compliance of the order dated 27-4-2006 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court inW.P.No.2209/2006 and the order dated 28-4-2011 passed by another coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2234/2011, it appears that the petitioner herein has filed application before the Sub Divisional Officer and copy has been sent to the Collector, and on the basis of copy of the said application, the Collector a^Laas.ia?sa^i6,,^3S«3Bs|sa^ ;iilSt?:" 'S -/ Soma has taken cognizance and finally, the Collector has sent the file to the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer has not take eognizance ofthe matter. 5. The order impugned also does not reveal that the Sub Divisional Officer has issued notice to the petitioner before passing such order or has issued notice to the petitioner. Other proceedings may be on the basis of application filed on behalf of the petitioner, dated 3-5-2011. The Sub Divisional Officer was under obligation to consider theclaim of the petitioner in the light of the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions and to passappropriate orders in accordancewith law. However, the order reveals that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is hereby quashed. The case is remitted back to theSub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Baikunthpur and the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) shall after providing opportunity of hearing pass order afresh. The petitioner hereinshall remain present before such authority on 5 of September, 2011 for further proceeding of the case. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge i^^^^SS^SSS^^^^-^