HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPIJR WiitPetitiML(ArfcJ271N<^14^of20{^ RESPONDENTS -.., PI.TJTIONER : Babulal Yadav, S/o Shri Nohar Singh Yadav, Aged about 70 years, R/o Village Semariya, 8aq)ancha, Village Panchayat Semariya, Tahsil Lonm, District Bilaspur ^TERSUS ~ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, tlirougli Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantraiaya, DK8 Bhawan^ Raipur (CG). 2. Tlie Collector, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, District Bilaspur (CG). 4. Daiilat Ram, S/o Sliri Santosh Gandharv, R/o viilage Semariya, Tzihsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG). (WKTT PETmON IJNDER ARTICI^E 227 OF THE CONSTmmON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satisli K. Agruliotii, J.) Present : 81m Ankit Agrawal, Advocate for the petitionei^ Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 05th ofMai'di, 2008) 1. By this petitioii, the petitioner impugiis the order dated 07.01.08 (Aiinexiire P/l), passed by the Board ofRevenue, Bilaspur (CG). 2, The mdisputable fects, in brief, are that the respoiident No. 4 was working as Kotwar of the village Semariya. Gram Panchayat, Semariya^ on 25.06,97, passed a resolution for mitiatmg proceedmgs agamst respondesit No. 4 mider the provisioiis of Sectiosi 230 offhe Land Revenue Code (for short ?LRC?). Co!i^e€|ueiitly,Na^ab Tahsildar, Lomii issued a notice to the respondent No. 4, calling upon liim to submit liis respoiise to the notice in regard to alleged various irregularities conmiitted by him, Tlie respondent No. 4 submitted his reply on 22.09.97 making allegatioiis agaiiist the petitioiier, who was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Semariya. Tlie Nayab Tahsildar, after recordmg the statemeiit of the witnesses foimd the respondent No, 4 giiilty and coii^equentty, he was dismissed from the post ofKotwar ofGram Panchayat, Semariya. 3. Tlie respoiident No. 4^ feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Lonm (for short 'SDO'). The SDO allowed the appeal @ partly and remanded back the matter to the Tahsildar on the gi'oimd that the respondent No. 4 was not afforded proper opportumty to produce evideiice. 4. Tlie petitioner, feeling aggrieved, preferred a Revision before the Collector, Bilaspur. The Additional Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 29.09.07 (Amiexure P/4) set aside the order dafed 08.06.99 (Aimexiire P/3) passed by the SDO and held that the order dated 12.11.97 (Aimexiire P/2) passed by the Tah^ildar, LonBi, was in accordance with law. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 again preferred a Revision before the Board ofRevenue, Bilaspur (CG). Tlie Board ofRevenue, having heard all the parties came to the conclusion as under: "7. R^I-{UI T<i|i!td<{ ^ 3ilal<^<3 ST^tTR 1?da-<i+{ ^t ^cil^ TNT wrsf^r ^r 4^fki sra^R ^t i^cff t. ss^i^ ^RT WSPE? y^Ri t^ f^'TT^ 04.11.1997 Wt 3WCT? ^T?T. f^ 3{^i-y<fr-( IT^^T ^S^ t^ ^RRT f^qrrj RxiKuj ^tytdil gKT ITSWRt' ^ ^IM f^ri^ 14.10.1997 ^ Wf^ f^, t^t R'li'eh 04.11.1997 ^•1 'H^lkt ^? f^ITi 3.1PTPft 4?ft l^rfSr 10.11.1997 ^' 311^<<t> srf^^RTT ^RT ITO^W ^t 3{Pj^cbl4cSI^ ^^ t^ SiyN f^IT. f^RT SffVFS! Wf^ ^ SIT^cp 3riS(4<tdt ^ ^K.^. tfe^ilM ^RT <IS<«<ftl4<tlil ^ WT ^ ^ ^I^TC t^qTj ^tdd'it^ ^RT ^rRT 29 ^ ^RR^ ^Tf^HT q?T 3|T^?T ^ ^ ^flira d^<iTld<K, olh^ ^ ^KIId^ ^ ira»7°TSRT^ ^S?FrilcTR(T ^^ %^ f^ff^ 01.10. 1997 ^t SS^'H^n^t airf^Nt ^ruTW). cit^ift ^ Sff^T f^ff S3T, f^RT TR ^^^T dg^d<K. dN^ ^ qRT ^vlTi d^<iftd4N ^qr ^ ar^sn^r qf^ ^ R?i*^4N W»R^ sit^rft ?tt t, ^j^ ^{AjSdii ^ '^RT ^t EZIFT ^ ^I^ ^? ^TST^Rf ^ ^n^T q§f ^FI^f^ ^T tjilfkl ^SWr W^H ^t^t ^t^ ®TT. ^R^ asRi^nydi ^ *iif4i^ ^^ sra^Tft *4^i41 <tdd^i^ ^ WSR^ ^ qgf?PTsN q»T Siq^R W?P<T f^ff, i^RT^ citdd^l^ ^t ^'rar^ ^ qwiPi®N^T SR^R ^t ftcT ^wri y4»^ui ^ 7T^h?TT ^ <Hp^f^d lt^-dlf^<it< ^-t ^sT^ ^? i3f^T ^hTT f^ d^'rflcKK. o^ft STT^ ^T? 1ER ^TST^RlT ^t ^^qT^ TWRRWaN ^T ^Prf^T 3R^R ^ ^ ^"i<1*i TK ^FT^T Pi^t4»^ul ^F, l^ET^ ^^^^ /^^\ I i 1 T^'t i ^ ':%.-^^/ E' ^rsTRf^ra yic^f^ch ^iRistfdT ^T TTcR f^IT yIT^ I ^fcrid^l yPT ^J^^ ^T[RqT ^ ^1^4^ ^q^i^q^ q^|<SU8 Vf!3S 1ET^cf ^fl^ ^TST^T? ^€t ^f^t, RI^IKUS ^l^llctii ^rf^ ^lt, Hl Wft 44i(Si<*>iR<iT ^t ^<ii4 ^rai? ^ ^T ^' ^T^ t^ ^?R[ 11 ^-T ^Pft ^^t' ^ ^^? ^f?Tf^T *<:S<te^ ?^d»^1^ ^KT 3iq^ SIT^T f^lt^ 28.09.2001 ^ f^W ^fe ^ ^Rl^uf f^^^ f^qi t, l^ i^T? ^^ -^- 4,1^-jj^ t j 8. <^t^^ii ^ ^tR^ch 'OTS^ c^ Rl^NUS tTW 4snf^» f^F^3^' ^t Rt4^i-ti ^ ^iR^ssf ^ SlfN^T <teci<t(i< f^dl^^ ^T ^rt?T f^t^ 29.09.2001 RlI^t'M^d ^f€t ^^ ^ ^sH^ l^^T f^qT umTT tl ^-t'n<9ul SRTtT: -W^T f^T yfRTT t| H^P>T <OTR f^ ~>T^ Pi^iT ^ ira>i?r ^ d^'iTid4t< o^4t ^t qS^R ^t ^rar^ ^ ^TST WT4^r ^r ^s^Rsd SRRR IRFT ^^ ^? ^"i^I-i ^ 3TTETR TR Pt^lcb^"! t^ y??it]Rtti f^EIT uTRTT 11" 6. Thus, the petitiotier has preferred this petition. 7. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that the respoiident No. 4 was given fijll opportunity of hearmg and Tahsildar, Lomii, after examinmg all the witnesses came to hold that fhe respondent No. 4 was giiilty ofconmiitting alleged irregiilarities. 8. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, pemsed the pleadmgs aiid docunients appended thereto. The fiiidings recorded by the Board of Revenue that the respondent No. 4 was condenmed without afFording opportumty ofhearing and producmg his witaesses. The Tahsildar passed the order in haste was correct and the mipugKied order does not warrant any mterference in exercise of extraordmary Jimsdiction of this Court under -Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 9. It is well settled prmciple of law that imder Ajticle 227 ofthe Constitution ofliidia, this Court has jurisdiction ofjudicial review ofthe order passed by the Court below, m the eveiit, there is mamfest and apparent error on the face ofthe proceedings based on the clear igiiorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law or there is grave failure ofjustice or grave mjustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this court caii also entertam the petition in its supervisory jiirisdiction ifthere is pen/ersity, irregularity or illegality m the process ofdeeision, not inthe decisioii itself 10.In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is dismissed, simmiarily. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Salm