^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 'Te Writ Petition No.4517 of 1997 PETITIONERS: 1. Sudarshan Roy S/o Sushant Roy, R/o Village Baraud, Tahsil Gharghoda District Raigarh (MP) (now CG). 2. Smt. Geeta Roy Widow of Sushant Roy, resident of Village Baraud, Tahsil Gharghoda District Raigarh. 3. Sudhir Rai S/o Amol Kishore Roy, resident of VUIage Baraud, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. 4. Sashikant Roy S/o Dharamkant Roy, resident of Village Baraud, Tahsil Gharghoda District Raigarh. SI.No.2 to 4 through their attorney Sudarshan Roy S/o Sushant Roy, R/o Village Baraud, Tahsil Gharghoda District Raigarh (MP) (now CG). Versus 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Secretary, Depari:ment of Revenue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. Collector, Raigarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Gharghoda District Raigarh (MP) (now CG). 4. Mohilane Patwari, Baraud, Tahsil Gharghoda District Raigarh (MP) (now CG). {Writ petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India} RESPONDENTS: Present: Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel forthe petitioners. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Single Bench: Hon'ble hflr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (10-8-2011) &±i^ w ^ sfiKKt8'^" Soma 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 25-9-1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda in Revenue Case No.120/A-23/96-97 whereby after obtaining permission for review, the revenue authority has initiated proceeding and has directed the Patwari for submission of detailed report. The revenue authority has also provided opportunity of hearing to the parties that too ' on the basis of direction by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. No.2426/97 vide order dated 27-6-97 whereby the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while disposing of the petition directed to decide the objection first before further proceeding and in compliance of such direction, the revenue authority has decided the objection filed on behalf of the petitioners herein. 2. In these circumstances, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the order impugned before the revisional or appellate forum, if so advised. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge Bll! si':?i: K ^ lalfctfes-