IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT WRIT PETITION No. ^r^/2Qni- (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA) cwft/m^/ifi ^PETITIQNER: ' 1.POQNAM CHAND AGRAWAL S/o Govindram Agrawal, aged ab.out 24 years, 2._SMT. KAMLA DEVI AGRAWAL Wo CTOvindrara Agrawal, aged about $4 years, Both resident of Samta'Colony Ra.ipur (Chhattisgar.h)^ //Versus// 1. STATE O.F CHHATTISGARH Through Secretary, Revenue Department D.K, Bhawan, Raipur (CHHATTISGARH) 2. THE SECRETARY Revenue Deparfcment, D< !L Bhawan,, Raipur (CHHATTISGARH). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE -226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ON TNDTA ^ESPONDENTS: ^VfT, ^Y XI-HC-22 f^Q^ , . ^ (___J^ Ct^^—y^^^'^ ^-^' --qHRTq^WR-, Fww^ C^ ..^ <2, ^'/ <2..2 Q <2^^A'^ r-f-^^.L ^ '" -q^^ ^^.....^.^_..._^—^ ^)P. . .....T.........../^^^...-. C.-^e^/T^ ^^/;^e .^^^-y- lTOWI?CTt%'."""""""13""»""y""""^'200]—".-"-•-••"-•"--•-••-—-."^•-".^—.^ Purt^m"-?;^^-"--^^•••••••(^^ 8WflBle Benclr 3TT^r^I t^ri^%t?i ^:fi^73[fiT[ ^¥T^m^. "^^ ^OTf^pN 'WT^f ^ f^Tzt Tf^T3T( ^T-3:rf^T ^TT^T M^^l^L ~7 24<4.2001 Petitioners by Shri Manjoj Paranjpe, Advocate• Respondent-State by Miss Sharmila Singhai. Govt, Advocateo Heard. Miss Singhai sulxn-Lts tl'l ?@tSt!0n^f.4i pr^senis^ Q^ Wita. hy.Shn...(r).. it b^ cjiactt^ fcat the matter has been exaiaine^ by th@ GollQCtor and tfae Colle<tfcor was pleased to reject tbe r^quest ^ytirpt^w-' ^W.up,^ •^c^^y d^ ,g^h^<>/^ ^^-f^f^3^ of tJae writ petitioner for exchange of land in terms of Section 167 of the M.Po Land Revenue Gode\ It is also sulMnJ.tted by Miss sing^ai that there is provision und^r which, if aggrieved by the ^rder ofttie Collector, the writ p^titioner should haye gone to &pproa< competent authority^ instea^ the 3wrlt petitloner submitted s<j>me representation to Uie Secre^ary 31T^T^T feNi'^TI^T ^THWTrft'ci Thalcar^ , ^^! V^^S ( ) ^nfe^ 'WT^ff ^ f^st Ti^R^R '^'^<m3?H^T Revenue Department and a^so the State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary of the MTo Paranjpe sulxai^s issued to the respoadent^ representatipn within submlts that there is no in as miQh as the writ any grievance by way of the Competent Aufchbrifey 4< by the Collector. Revenue Departmeat^ tfoat a directioa be to disppse of the sp^Gifled time^ Miss Singhai Iroom for fchis exerci.se p^titioner has not taken jjtevision or appeal before ^gainst the order passed r- la my view it is 4tj-lJL o?en t€> the writ petitioner to approach fctjxe CompeAeat Awbt^ority against the order of Col^ector dt^ 8^3<,2t01» Zt appears remedy has t6 provisions prescribed ia be sought under the relevaat this regard^ After heariag leafned counsel for fehe parties I am of the view that mo direettori is called for in the presenfc case• Accord^ngly this writ petitlon is rejected^ However ^ s inc^ tfae petitioner appears y >ghly aggrieved by tfoe oxrder o^ rejection by the Collec^ 3r» if the appiropriate appellate forura is approached by the writ petitioner with^La a period of qae raonth from today^ the delay tf aay ^hall^staad eoadoaed^ x ^ Sd/- Chief Justice GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50,000. ^