.,;•...; .-'y^^ HIGH CWJRT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOH (2271 No. 4469/2011 PBffITIONBRS SON-APPLICAtITS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. RE8PONDISMT8 APPUCAMTS VERSU8 1. 2. 3. Smt Kuxaari Bai W/o Late Aianddhar Deewan, aged about 78 years, Vipiu Dhar Decwan S/o Late Ananddhar Deewan, aysd about 53 years, Prabha Devi D/o Late Aaanddhar Decwaa, aged about 62 years, Beena' Dcewan D/o Late Ananddhar Deewaa, aged about 57 years, Recta Deewan D/o Late Ananddhar Deewaa, s^ed about 55 years, Shobha Deewaa D/o Late Aaanddhar Deewan, aged abwit 40 ycars, Vikas Dcewan S/o Late Ananddliar Deewan, agcd about 48 years, AB R/o village Kharidiaradih, Pafewari Halka No. 143/23, Revenuc Circle Nawapara, Tahsfl Abhaiipur, District Raipur(C.G.) Smt Sita Bai Choabey W/o Shri Vyas Narayaa Choubey, aged about 65 yeara, R/o Choubey Cdony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.Q.) Ramesh Kumar Baajare S/o Shri Budh Ram Banjare, R/o viBage Tenui, Post Mana, Tahsil and Dfetrict Raipur (C.G.) The Board of Reveaue, CUiattisgarh, fhrough its Presidcnt, RalpTir (C.O.) WRIT PBTITION UMDBR AKTICUi 227 OF "mB^CONSTITUTIOM OF INDIA. (8B :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharaa, J.) Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for tfafi petitioners. Shri V.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1/Cavetor. Respondents No. 2 & 3 not noticed. ORAL- ORDBR p'assedon 10/08/201l) 1. By tfais pctittion under Artfcle 227 of Ifae Conslitutum of India petitioners have chatlenged the legaUly aad propricty of tfae order dated 2/8/2011 paased by Boaid of Revenue, BUaspur (C.G.) Ctocuit Court, Raipur ia rcvenuc rcvlsion case No. R.N./ 14/R/A- 6/374/2010 whereby whfle exeicisiag fhe revisfainal jurtediction in terms ofScction 50 ofthe C.G. Laud Revenuc Code, 1959 (in short ^..v,'-^_ ^. s\e — z- the Code') ^ainst thc ordcr dated 13/7/10 pa^ed by NaB? Tahsfldar, Nawapara, District Raipur (C.G.) ia revenue casc No. 05- A/6 Year 08/09 whereby Naib TahsUdar, Nawa(»ra, Dislrict Raipiir (C.G.) has staycd fhe proceedixig tiU detenntaation of the titte of the parties 'bas bcen reversed the order of inutetfon ia fsLvaw ofthe respondcnt No. 1 has been passcd. 2. Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitfoacrs and Shri V.K. Shanna, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1/Cavetorare heaid. 3. Order aapiigaed, copy of fhe order dated 31/7/2009 p^ased by Addltioiial CoUector, Raipiu- C.G. aad coipy of othcr docuaEBnts including the oider passed ia writ petition (227) No. 5904/2010 dated 17/2/2011 pcrused, by which this Coiut has directed to decide the revision afiresh for the Boatd ofRevcnuc. 4. Leamed couasel for fbe petitioners submits that In exercuse ©f revisional juriscliction ^amst the iaterim ordcr of s'tayiag tlw proccedmg tiU detenntoation of the title of fhe partfes &»rd of Revenue was coiapetent to quash the onler passcd by Naib Tahsfldar, Nawapara, District Raipur (C.G.) or affinaed tfae cader but jt was not competent to pass final order. 5. On the ofher hand, learaed counscl for (hc respondcnt No. 1/cavator vehementty opposed thc petition and s»fl)mitB that present petitfoners are not haviag aay interest ower the yoperty and rcspondent No. 1 has acqitteitioned the title <wcr pxopcrty thcrefoie, by directing the niutatfon of tiamc of respondent No. 1, Board ofRevenue has not conumtted any iBegalily. 6. Ordcr dated 13/7/10 passed by Naib Tahsiklar, Nawapaaa, District Raiptir (C.G.) revcal that instead of pToceeding ia lautatfoa proceedmg, Naib Tahsfldar, Nawapaaa, District Raipur (C.G.) has stayed fhe proceeding till detemuiiation of title of tbe pBrtfes. ta Kl' fhese dtTcumstances, Boaid of Revenue was competeat to reverse fhc order or affirm the order whk;h was not nierite after final adjudication ofdispute but by passit^ final oider in rcvision Boacd of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction vested on it. Therefore aforesaid order impugued is not sustainable under thc law. Consequenfly, ordcr iiapugaed dated 2/8/2011 is liabte to bc quashed and is hereby quashed. Case is remaaded back to the Board of Reveuue for decidiag fhe revision afesh after providiag opportunily ofhcanng to the partics. Parties are duectui to reittain present before fhe Board of Revenue persoitalty or tterougfa dvSy engaged counsel on 6/9/2011. No ordcr as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge -r^