IN__ rIHE HIGI-E COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR W.P. No,-^^<^/1998 • IT PETITION UNDER ART» 226/2 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioners Respondents Vs. l» Birancfai s/o Seshokolta aged 33 years resident of Village Barteachar PCN, 43 Tahsil Gharghoda^ Disf^ Raigarh» 2^ Baximali s/o Seshokolta aged 19 years resident of Village Barkachher» PCN 43 Tahsfl Gharghoda, Dist. Rgigarh<» 1. State of M.P. through Secretary^ Reveniie Department, Vallabh Bhax^an Bhopad><» ^ 2. The Collector> Raigarh^ Dist^ Raigarh M«P. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer ( Civil ), Gharghoda^ Dis t• Raigarh» M» P o Nilmani s/o Dayanidhi aged 50 years resident of Tillage Barteaahher PCN 43 Tahsll Gharghoda Dist^ Raigarh^ 5. Kirtan s/o At^ar aged 23 years^ resident of Village Barkaahher PCN 43 Tahsil Gharghoda^ Dist^ Raigarh<» ^R.17 PETITION. UNDER ART. 226/227 OF THB CONS'riTUTION pF_IMOIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT_BH.,ASPUR SB : HON'BLB SHRI JUSTICB N.K.AGRAWAL W.P.NO. 5629/1998 PETinQNH^ Biranch & Another Versws RESPONDENTS StateofC.G. 85 Others WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226/227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OFBiDIA Aooearance: Shri Ashish Surana^ counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta,G,A. forthe State/resp. No. 1 to 3. Shri B.D.Guru, counsel for respondent No. 4 8& 5. ORAL ORDBR (06.08.2009) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The instant petition has been filed seeking relief to the effect that the entire proceedings of Revenue Case No. 50/A- 23/1991-92 pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda^ District Raigarh be quashed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Officer is illegal as the said proceedings cannot be initiated by exercising the power of review of which permission granted by Collector itself is not legal and prays for relief of quashment of the aforesaid revenue case pending before the SDO. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the. petition is pre-mature and the point which the petitioner is raising before this Court, has to be raised before the Sub Divisional Officer. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this petitlon is pre-mature and the petitioner can raise all the points which he is raising before this Court before the SDO. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as premature. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge