< WQH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR Writ Pefition (Ci No.7453 of 2007 1. Gautam @ Durgacnaran, Son of Ramia!, aged sbout 44 yesrs; 2. Hemant Kumar, Son of Ramlai, sged abouf 42 years, 3. Ashwini Kumar, Son of Ramia!, aged about 40 ysare, AH R/b viiiage Jaangra, Tahsii Sakti, Dstt.Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) V'e/sys 3. Diidar Singh, Son of Pitambar Singh Gond, aged about 57 years, Mohit Ram, Son of Firtoo Ram Gond aged about 47 years, Siyaram, Son of Pttambar Singh Gond, aged about 67 years, Aii R/o village Tendutoha, Tahsii Sakti, Distt.Janjgir-Chsmpa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Co!!ector, Distt.Janjgir Champa (vV'rit Fsfition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of india) Mr.Ravindra AgrawaS, counsel for the petitioners. Mrs.Renu Kochar, counsei for rsspondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Vinod Tekam, Pansi Lawyer for respondent No.4/'State. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharms, J.) (14-11-2011) By this writ petition under Ari:icle 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have chailenged ihe legaiity and propriety of the order 22.5.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Biiaspur, in Revlsion Cass No.RN/06/R/A-23/'22/006, affirming the order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the Additiona! Collector, Janjgir, In Appea! Case No.37/A-23/99-2000, '.vhereby the Additionai Coilector has reversed ihe order dated 8.5.2000 passed by the Sub Divlsionai Officer (Revenue), N ~>->-> •i '%. '-''Si^S.SK^-^ ^ ^te^.^' -^- Sakti, in Revenue Case No.577/A-23/96-97, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has dismissed the appiication fiied on behaif of respondents No.1 to 3 under Section 170-B ofthe Chhatti^arh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'Code'). 2. I have heard ieamed counsel for the parties, psrused the ordsrs impugned and other documents fiied on behaif ofthe partles. 3. Both the orders impugned reveai that the land was originaliy heid by respondenfs No.1 to 3 and after obtaining permission from ths Addiiionai Coiiector, Janjgir the iand has been soid to ihe present petitioners. Vide order dsted 4.1 .2006 the AdditioRai Coilector has arrived at a finding that the petitioners have obtained permission for seii of the iand in the name of respondents No.1 to 3 by committ!n( forgery and they have not submitted statement that how ihey are in posssssion of the aforesaid iand beionging to respondents No.1 to 3, members of aboriginai iribe. On fhe aforesaid ground the Additionai Coiiector has revsrsed the order passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer (Revsnue), Sakti, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has djsmisssd theappSication for reversion of the iand under SectSon 170B of the Code filed by respondents No.i to 3. By affirming ths order passed by the Additionai Coiiector, Janjgir, the Board of Revenue has heid that oniy noi notifying the transaction/possession who are in possession of the iand originaiiy heid by members of aboriginai tribe has not been deciared the frsuduient iransaction, but sfter relying the finding reiating to permission the Board of Revenue hss atso dismissed the revlsion. 4, Ths order passed by the competent authoriiy i.e. fhe Additjona! CoHector reiating to grant of permission io seli ihe iand was in existence at the time of the order dated 4.1.2006. in these circumstances, two options were avaitable to the Addiiional Coliscter i.e. firsf to obtain permission for review of the order granting permission from superior authority or on the basis of evidence availabie on record to pass the order afresh without being influsneed it by the order granting permisston, but She Additionai Coiiector has not aDDtied for oermission of review and has reversed the order ^' ,<?' & %., ^.^ -: ^ (3 ''^ /s^' -3 passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue), Sakti on ths ground that permission for sei! was granted on the fraudulent basis. Aforesaid finding was not sustainabie under the iaw and whiie passing such order the Additiona! Coiiector has committed ilisgaiity and virtualiy it has committed jurisdtetionai error, therefore, the ordsrs passed by the Additiona! Coiiector and the Board of Revenue are not sustainabie under the iaw and are deserve to be sst aside. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is aiiowed. Order dated 22.5.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Biiaspur, in Rsvision Case NO.RN/06/R/A-23/22/006 and order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the Additionai Coiiector, Janjgir, in Appeai Case No.37/A-23/99-2000 are hereby set aside. Case is remitted to the Court of Adctitionai Coliector, Janjgir for passing ihe order afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Additional Coiiector, Janjgir is at liberty 16 ask for permission of review of the order reiating to grant of permission. Parties are direcied to remain present before the Addifiona! Coiieotor, Janjgir on 10.1.2012. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge < ^y