'SWKs ? swf^i ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l W.P. fCl N0. 1(00 /2007 PETITIONER A^ »; '••"....^•••^t'^'K '^^y^ RESPONDENTS c'^ tt I- ??.'.'"!'-' Kumari Nirusha Agrawal D/o. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Aged about 24 years Residentof Chopada-para, ••:"U^T' Ambikapur,Dist.Sarguja (C.G.) Through : Constituted Lawful Attorney Shri Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, Son of Late Tarachand Agrawal, aged about 54 years, resident of Chopada-para, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS ^l. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ,2. Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G.) 4. Additional Collector District -Sarguja (C.G.) 5. Shri Taman Singh Sonwani Additional Collector District -Sarguja (C.G.) 'OB e-" l;'l 6. Vijay Kumar Agrawal 1. Ajay Kumar Agrawal 8. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal 9. Abhay Kumar Agrawal .0. Krishna Kumar Agrawat No.6 to 10 all son of late Tarachand Agrawal, resident of Gaddipara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 11. Anil Kumar Agrawal 12. Sunil Kumar Agrawal No.ll & 12 both son of Shri Bajrang Lal Agrawal, resident of Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISfiARH AT BILASPW Writ Petftton (O No. 1100 of 2007 PetitioneT Kumari Nirusha Agraiial Versus Respondents Stcrte of Chhaf'isgarh cnd others Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Present: AAr. Rtighavendra Pradhan, Advocate for -the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Sovemment Advocate for the Stcrte/respondents No. 1 to 4. AAr. Manoj Paronjpe, Advocate for -the Cnveator. OftbER (Possed on 271h buy of February, 2007) The following order of the Court was passed by Sartish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks for quadiing of the entine proceedings along with the order dated 8-2-2007 (Annexure P/l). ^. 2. The facts in nutdiell are that one AAr. Taman Sin9h Sonwani. Additional Colleetor, Sarguja exercising of his power under Section 44 of -the Chhattisyirh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for ^iort "-the Code"), while heoring the revision under Section 50 of Ihe Code, dismisad the pretiminury objection of -the petitioner that the Court of the Additional Collector, Sargu^t does not have jurisdiction to decide the revision filed under Sectton 50 of the Code, as the same has not been conferred on him. 3. Leamecl counsel cppearing for the peti'tioner aAmits •thart the Additional Coltector, even if, it is presumed that he has jurisdiction ought to howe decided -ttie preliminary objection of the jurisdiction of the Court befope proceeding for final hearing and disposal of the cose. 4. Leamed counsel oppearing for ihe petitioner hos made certain o'ther altegations that the order dated 26/27/12/2006 whereunder, Mr. Tamon Singh Sonwuii, Additionat Collector, Sarguja was conferred •tfie power under 5ection 44 of tiie Code was obtained by nwnyulation of the document, subsequently vide order dated 26/27/12/2006 (Annexure A-l), is not relevant for -the purpose of consideration of this case. 5. On reading of -t+ie documents, •there is no indiaition of any manyulation, however, without expressin9 any opinion on the contention of Ihe leamed counsel. It is found •that Mr. Tamcn Singh Sonwani, Additional Cottector, Sarguja vide order dated 26/27/12/2006 (Annexure A-l) has been conferred with the power to decide revision under Section 44 of the Code. 6. The second contention of the petitioner is to decide prelimnwry objection before hearing the matl-er on merits, seems to be justified. 7. It is w»llsettted that if a party raises objection about jurisdiction, the Court/Tribunal without deciding the preliminary objection wi-rti 5ubh&rfi 'w regard to jurisdiction of the Court/Tribunal, diould not proceed wrth the final hearing for disposal of the matt-er. 8. The order ctated 8-2-2007 (Annexure P/l) reject-ing -the objectton of the petitioner with r®9ardto -the jurisdiction of -the Additional Collector is accordingly quashed and the petition is ailtowed to the above extent. 9. The reqiondent No. 5 is accordmgly directed to decide the preliminary objection of the petitioner first before proceeding for final hearing and disposal of the pending revision before him. Consequently, M.(W.P. No. 711/2007, <m application for gront of interim relief stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agniliotri Judge ^•- ^i^I^E^'-