r..J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIQNBIfc W.P. fCI 3937/2007 Lal Chaad Meghawani S/o Shri Tara Chaad Meghawaai, aged about 42 years, Occupation Ciiltivator, ViUage Choubey -baadha, Rajiia R/o Near Bus Staad Rajim Distt. Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDBNTS: VBRSUS 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Througfa Secretary, Revenue Miaistiy, D.K.S. Bhavan,Mautrataya Raipur (C.G.). Adl. CoUector, Gariyabaad, Distt. Raipur (CG), Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, C.G. Througb Registrar, Bilaspur, C.G. WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF TOIB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri SumitJhanwar, P.L. for the State, ORAI-- ORDBR (Passedoa 27/07/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has chaUenged fhe legality and propriety of tbe order dated 23/ 1/2007 whereby Additional Collector, Gariyabaad has prayed for review ia Revenue Case No. 45/B/121 Year 2006-2007 aud the order dated 5/3/2007 passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur Cbhattisgarh ia Revenue Case No. RW/14/R/B- 121/12/2007 whereby Board of Reveaue has grauted permission for review ¥• to the Additional CoUector. 2. Shri Atniyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner aad Sbri Suiuit Jhanwar, * P.L. for the State are heard. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subinits that vide order dated 10/6/2002 passed by Additional CoUector, Gariyaband ia revenue case No. 28/A/59 Year 2001-2002 land was aUotted to tbe petitioner on fhe basis ofexchauge ofland and subsequently Additional Collecfor at the iastance of po]itical affairs has tried to quash the order passed by it by tavokiug review power. -+ -2—- ;.s--<.<y yy 4. Order iinpugned perused. At the iastance ofAdditional CoUector for veview offhe previous order Board of Revenue, Bflaspur Chhattisgarh bas granted pennission for review. Bofh the Aufhorities have not passed aay order prejudicial to the petitioner. Petitioner is Iiaviag ample aud sufficient opportunity to redress his grievauces before the Additional CoUector at the time of hearing on review. Vide praying for review aad graating permission for review both the Auftionties have not coininitted any illegality requiring any iaterference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be disnussed and is hereby disiuissed. 5. AI1 interun appUcations are also disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge <l 4. B IKIi w-w