?/2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 4250 OF 2010 PETITIONER APPLICANT RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANT Vs. 1. 2. 3. Gurbheegan Das, aged 62 years, S/o Dungru Das, Caste Panika, R/o Vil. Bhanora, Tah: Balrampur, Dist. Sarguja (C.G.). Kailash Diwedi, S/o Kodu Ram Diwedi, R/o Vil: Bhanora, Tah: Balrampur, Dist. Sarguja (C.G.), The Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.). State of C.G., through The Secretaiy, Dept. of Revenue, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, , (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Sanjeev Namdev, Advocate on behalf of Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L. for the State/respondents No. 3. None fortherespondent'No. 2. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 14/07/2011) By this petition underArticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and proprietyof the order dated 9/7/2010 passed by Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Revenue Case No. R.N,/16/R-A-6(A)/68/2009 affirming the order dated 5/2/2009 passed by Additional Commissioner, Surguja, Division Ambikapur, District Surguja in Revenue Appeal Case No. 54/A-6/2008- 09 reversing the order dated 1/3/2008 passed in Case No. 22/A-6- A/2006-07 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsildar, Ramanujganj who has passed the order on 9/4/2007 whereby he has agreed the entry under Section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short 'the Code'). Shri Sanjeev Namdev, Advocate on behalf of Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for the r ^sw^ :-Y"^"^ :,5s^ -•^-- 6. respondent No. 1 & Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L. for the State/respondents No. 3 are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Tehsildar has passed the order behind the back of petitioner, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. Vide order dated 29/3/2007 case was fixed for 12/4/2007 but on the basis ofurgent application, case was taken earlier and decided on 9/4/2007 therebyCourt below has committed illegality in not providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No; 1 & Mr. Vinod Tekam, learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 3 opposed the petition and submits that initially on 15/3/2007 case was fixed for order thereafter case was posted for calling the report for 12/4/2007 and on the basis of application for urgent hearing, report was called and order was passed on 9/4/2007. Additional Commissioner, Surguja, Division Ambikapur, District Surguja and Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur arrived at a finding that co.mplete opportunity of hearing has been provided to the parties and Court below has not committed any illegality. Learned counsel for fhe respondent No. 1 further submits that although Section 89 ofthe Code gives power to Sub-Divisional Officer for correction of entry after settlement proceedings but aforesaid power has been invested upon the Tehsildar by the State Government vide Notification No. 2539-6403-VII-N-l in exercise ofpower conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 22 ofthe Code. Both the orders impugned reyeal that Tehsildar has provided complete opportunity of hearing and has passed the authorized order under Section 89 ofthe Code for which he has was authorized to pass the order. - Copy of order-sheet reveals that both the parties were present on 3/4/2007 & 9/4/2007 at the time ofurgent hearing & final order passed • t .^' :11^^^ by Tehsildar, in these circumstances, I do not find any illegality requiring any inte.rference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ^j TR Sharma Judge ^ Vl