IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETTION No. 8% 41 OF 2004 PETITIONER : BHUPESH KUMAR SAHU S/O SHRI BALIRAM SAHU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O VILLAGE¥DINDOURL TAHSIL LORMI, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (C.G.). $$0 “ \‘ zs ‘9'” wKe' \& t W VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH : THE SECRETARY, <\ REVENUE DEPARTMENT, D.K.S. Q <% BHAWAN RAIPUR, (c.G.). CHHATTISGARH BOARD OF REVENUE, BILASPUR, (C.G.). MW 3. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (C.G.) THE TAHSILDAR, LORMI, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (C.G.). 5. PATWARI, CIRCLE NO. 12, TAHSIL LORMI, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION'OF \‘ INDIA FOR ISSUE' OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE 7,» NATURE ETC. WW,WE W mzco mW(W) WWW WWW mm WW ' $ai§wm £9.@1 .2065 Shri Rahul Birthley ‘ Shyi Shri Sam‘av S. for tha Stam. Haard bozh ths com 13€1 at ‘L‘ha admissicn Siags. The patitiOnm‘ has 13¢mf€rr6d this writ 1mtition 1111(161 Constitution of India being order re‘spcndent No.4—Board revisioaal jurisd ic tion. Brief facts 1€adi11g t tha mhsildar. Lormi iSsu 13€titionar that as pm“ 1‘6 ps‘titiont‘r had cut one s punishable iiiider Section 240 the CG. Land Revenue Code, ionei‘ waS called upon to appear 6‘ 12.2002 and Show cause Why referred to the Sub Divisional Against this order the petitioner 10 diemiseed the appeal of the e peritioner has field a revieioh 'enue, which also oame‘to he Board. ‘Aggrieved therewith the Article 226/227 of th€ 13V tha aggrievetl o filing of this petition are ihat ad a notiCE Animxura P-4 t0 the pori of Patwari concerneii i116 Babcol tree sianding on the governumnt lancl, which i read with Section 253 OT 1959, therafora, tha petit baforE thii TEhsildar on 1 the matter Should not be Officer f0r imposing film. wen-tom the Collector, W} patitidnar, TharEaftm‘, th before the Board‘of ReX (liomissed bV the Revenue petitioner has preferred t counsal for thE Dmitionsr. Agrawal, Govm‘nmmlt Advocatg dated 1.9.2004 pa$5€d bf; of R€V€nu€ i11 fixarcisa of its his W rit E) e tition. GRPRJ FS/350—~12/2000 50,000. ‘ XI—HC 78 WWW Wm E1200 whim (W3) Wmm n 1 A L4 Li§dl cause Botice has beEn €ffu3ct that he should ex gianding on the. governm th€ matter Should iiot b Officar for appropriam a cause notic5 WW‘§WW $aimemé¥r has patitionm‘ has fiktd th€ 1i6. 1‘11 VIEW 1oar11€ d B o ard 3V6 , I am of thé opinion that of Ravenue has not committed anV illcgality or material irregularitv in passing tho impugned order which UL (. Lre PA srLows tnat onlv Show issued to {ha pEtitioger to/the plain as ta Why one Babaol trs’e 6nt land was Cut bV him and Whv e r€f€=rrad to ths Sub Divisional ition. TherEfore, so far only Show n issued agaixmt which 1116 :grssmlt pEtition, which doas 110t tho potitionor to invoke the extraordinary juriSdicticn of this Court. Therofore, tho lootifiou of tho petitionoi‘ is liablo to b6 clismissocl and it is diSmissed at the atlmission Stags it$elf. Sd/ - ‘:Ll.c.BHA°°° Juége of the ab entitlos;