c. ^ (^ 2N ®E HI@H GOrBT ©F JTOIGAT^NE AT »2LASP(?K (€©) WR2T PB'EITIGN N©.3^6^-©S* ys^mm Moti Ram gahu §/o liafee K>Graa saihu, ate<3 ateout; 62 years, f/© ^Lllage.^ikaa^, t^asil Aaarotari, Mstrict tfi^nt&Ei^ (08), Ay.^&s. I>B23:TIGNER w"^^' X j'yy .^.^ .X ft N » b'^X. i'^<^ 11 2!S ^ ^r:- 17: ^ae Stata of clahatt.issFarfe^ thB©xigbtih®Secretary^ •BBartraeR-bof Itevaaue#i Mon-tealay ^s.K.s.taildin®, aaipir (os). Ibe K>ard of Itewnue^cfehattlsgazh, la-iroiagh its RcesideRt^ N-laspur (o@)» AamtazAl aistilefe Aamtari (©©)• %e Naib «Beihsil<aw^ "Aein-faariy •istE-ict ifeamtari (0©)» •aasi Lal ^/o BiEaii @ahuj! E/6 lillage saaIara,*BBhsil and Bd.stri.et tfiamtiaEi (©©)* Awa^K S/o PursEB Sahu^ reJSJlMeQ-fc of slllafe saislea%; ®ehsil^aad Ms-fcriLct ^iaratari^ aalBnan »ai WS/Q Baroii Sabiiy Eesi<3dit of villa®e Sss^ssay Stehsil and BlstaAct ifeamtari (©©)< WRIT IE'CT'EE€N mSER ARTICI.BS 226/227 ©?•EHE ceNSTlTUtS® ©t^TOMIIS'.- - . :- . . . .>• • ... .. ... . • ,.. ,.. r'" -'^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB AT BILASPUR.OIHATTISGARH Writ Petition No.3584 of2004 Moti Rani Sahu - Versus - State of Chhatdsgarh and others POST FOR ORDBR ON 3rd DECEMBER. 2004 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge HIGH COURT OF JUDICA.TURE AT BILA8PVR* CHHAttISQARH Writ Petitlon No.3884 of 2004 Mod Raoa Sahu - Versiis - State of Chhattisgarh and ofhera Present: - Smit* Renu Koohar, Advocate: Shri Saiijay S. Agrawal, Caovt* Advocate: For the petitioner. Por the State. ORDER (Passed on 3Td December. 2004) L.C. BHADOO. J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the. Constitation of ladia^ questioning the correctness aiid legaMty of the oixler dated 21st July, 2004, passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh at. Bilaspur, rejectiag the rcvision and affinxmig the order of fhe CoUectory Dhamtari, whereby fhe Collector, Dhaintari vide order dated 7.8,2003 rejected the revision filed before liim agaiast the order offhe Naib Tehsildar, Dhamtari dated 13.6.2003, whereby the leanied Nalb Tehsfldar asked the Halka Patwari to send his report and the niatter was fixed for evidence, 2. Brief facts leadiag to filiag of this wnt petiition are fhat fhe petitioner hereia aad respondents No.5 & 6 hercia are real brothers, respondcnt No.7 is fheli' mother, aad they have joiat family, agricultural land situated at ViUage: Sankra, Palwari HaHca No.44, Tehsil & Distdct: Dhamtari aad at ViUage: Kandel, Patwari Halka No,43, tofcal area of 15 acres ia six dijGFerent Khata niimbers. Respondents No.5 to 7 herein have filed a petition before fhe Naib Tehsildar: Dhamtan for partition of their joint fajaiily property, During the proceediags some orders were passed agamst which the petitioner filed a revision beforc the CoUector and went upto fhe Revenue Boaxd aad the Revenue Board vide its order dated 21st August, 2002, reached the conclusion fhat the subonimate Courte have not passed reasoned order, in accordance with law, tihercfbre, remitted the matter to the Tehsildar wiUi directions that after giving Page 2 of3 opportixaity of heariixg to bofh. the parties decide tfae points raised by both fhe parties with a i^easojaed order^ ia accordaace with law. Accordiagly, fhe inatter agaia camie to the Naib Tehsildar and wheu flie Naib Tehsildar started taking evidence, the pefitiCTier CTdsed a poiat that one tractor troUtey was purchasecl after taking loan feom fhe Bank and iiiortgaguig ffae joiat property ia tavoiir of fbe Baxxk^ and the said loan is also still outstaadiag, therefore, partitfon ofthe agricultural laiid caniiot be eflfected, Ixi that process, vide order dated 13th Jime, 2003, the learaed Naib Tehsildar directed the Pativari to file a report regardmg fhe loaii aad baak inortgage; a^grieved by fh.at order, fhe petitioner hercia preferred fhe revision. The leamed Collector and Revenue Board x^ached the conclusion that fhe petitioner has not been able to point aay inegaMty ia fhe order impugned. Moreover, the Revenue Board observed that fhe matter has abeady beeii delayed by fhe petitioner by raising frivolous objections aad fhe xaatter is stiU pendiag siace last 12 Years, even fhen the xnatter has not been decided and tlie xaatter is pending for evidence of the petitioiier< It is furfher dii'ected that fhe Naib Tehsildar should proceed with fhe proceedmgs ia the Mght of the order ofthe Revenue Board dated 21<8t August, 2002, 3. I have heaxxl learaed coiiasel for (he petltioner on the question of admission, During the course of argumenlB, leanied counsel for tfae petitioner was not able to pomt out any illegaUly or impropriety ia the order challenged, At one stage, fhe petitioner huaselfhas raiaed the poiat that the land ia question has beeii inortgaged against the loan taken from fhe Baxik for purchase of the tractor tcolley. Wheti the Naib Tehsildar asked the Patevari to ascertaia JBrom the Baiik about the loan and the mortgage, and seiid his report rcgardiiig the objection x^ised by the petitioner, fhe petitioner has filed revision agaiast fhat order. As has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Siaxya. Dev Rai v» Ram CIiaader Ral aaid othCTS reported m 2003 AIR 8CW 3872, "fhe writ of certiorari is aa exercise of its origixsal jurisdiction by the Hi^h Court; exexcise ©fsiipex-visoiy Jurisdfc-tion is not aii origmal jurisdiction. Iii exercise of supervisory jurisdiction fhe High Court may not only quash or set aside the mipugn^l pioceedmgs^ judgnient or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstaiices of the case Page3of3 nxay zvan'ant, xn^y be by way of guidiag the iufetiox' Court or Tribusial as to the maxmer ia which it would now proceed further, Supervisoxy jurisdiction iiader Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the suboidmate Courts within fhe bounds of fheir jiirisdiction. When the subordmate Cozirt has assumed a jiuisdiction which it does not bave or has filed to exercise a jzuisdictioa which it does have or tfae jurisdictioa though available is being exercised by the C^urt in a inanaer not penaiftted by law axxd failure of justice or grave iajustice has occasioiied fhereby, the High Coiirt may step ia to exercise its supervisoiy jurisdiction. The High Court camiot correct the merc eiTors of fact or of law unless (1) the eiTor is manifest aiid apparent on the face of the proceedings ^uch as wlien if is based on clear ignoraiice or utter disregaid of fhe provisions of law, aad (2) a grave iigiistiee or gross fedlure ofjusrtice has <x?casio33^ fi^CT^^ Same view has again been reiterated by the Apex Court in the matter of Raajeet Siai^b v. Ravi Ihrafcsuili re^rted in 2004 AIR 8CW 4221. 4, Jn the Hglit of fhe above settled law, if we look iiito the petltioiier's petition^ the petitioner has not beeii abte to make out a case of mterference by fhis Court iHider the supenrisory jurisdictfosi uiider Article 227 of fhe ConstitutiQn of India, The main grievaace of the petitioner is agaiast the order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 13,6,2003, whereby tfae Naib Tehsiklar ia the partitioii proc^ediags has asked for a rcport of the Patwari rcgardmg the mortgage of the land ia question and tafcixig loan frosn the Bank for purchase of tractor trolley, ia order to decide fhe poiots raised by the petitioner that action by the Naib Tehsildar was necessitated. Therefote, I do Hot j5nd an.y iUegaJity or mipropriety or irregularity in the order impugned aad the petitioner has not beem abte to make out a case for iiiterference by fhis Court. 5, In the circumstaaces, &€ petition is dismissed m limiae, at the admission itself. —— Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sonxa