HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No.3686 of 2004 PETITIONERS: 1. Rishendra Singh Thakur s/o Late Bhim Singh Thakur, aged about 45 years. Mitra Bhushan Singh Thakur s/o Late Bhim Singh Thakur, aged about 43 years. 3. Chhabi Singh Thakur s/o Late Bhim Singh Thakur, aged about 41 years. 4. Hari Narayan Singh Thakur s/o Late Bhim Singh Thakur, aged about 40 years. AII r/o village Charbhatthi, Tehsil Rajim, District Raipur, C.G. Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Raipur, C.G. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Gariyaband, District Ranaur, C.G. Upper Collector, Gariyaband District Raipur,C.G. {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} ‘ Present: Mr. A.K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (1 1-8-201 1) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 17- 5—2004 passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Circuit Court Raipur) in Revenue Appeal Case No.217/A—71/2000-O1 affirming the order dated 15-3-2001 passed by the Additional Collector, ‘ Gariyaband in Revenue Case No.203/A-71/1997-98, whereby permission/for review of the order dated 25-7-64 passed by the Sub Divisio’nal Officer, Gariyaband in Revenue Case No.318/A-71 of 1960-61 v5 has been refused. . l have heard leérned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned ’and 'copies of other documents. . Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that at the time of passing the order of vesting of two tanks in the State Government under Section 251 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’), the Sub Divisional Officer was under obligation to make detailed enquiry in terms of Section 251 iof the Code, but the Sub DivisionalOfiicer has not made any enquiry and passed illegal order, when the petitioners filed, application for review of the order in the year 1991, the Sub Divisional Officer applied for permission to review'before the Additional Collector, Gariyaband which has been refused by, the order dated 15-3-2001. Learned counsel further argued that without any proper enquiry under Section 251 of the Code, the order dated 25-7-64 was illegal and half minded, and by dismissing the application for permission to review the aforesaid order, the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue have committed illegality. . On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the petition and submitted that after due enquiry, the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order dated 25-7-64 and petitions before the Sub Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and Board of Revenue are hopelessly barred by limitation. I . As per the initial order dated 13-3-61 passed by the Sub Divisional’ Officer, Raipur, in Case No.318A/71' year 1960-61, notice has been issued to the then occupier of the tank namely Jham Singh & Daulat Singh. Vide order dated 25-7-64 after considering the submission of the, then occupier of the tank, the Sub Divisional Officer has passed such order, but for the reasons best known to the alleged Jham Singh & Daulat Singh, they have nottfiled any appeal or revision or review petition, probably after their death in the year 2001, the petitioners herein who arevrsons of Late Bhim Singh Thakur may be successors of Jham Singh & Daulat Singh, have filed the aforesaid petition. Considering the order impugned passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties/the then occupier of the tank, l do not find any illegality or inhrmity 3 in the order passed by the revenue authorities relating to vesting of the \ tanks in the State Government. 6. Consequentiy, l do not find any substance in the petition, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sé/i' T.P. Sharma Judge Som‘a