/ 3mm mm ‘ (4/? (%;@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATuRE AT BILAsPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 7/éZl‘ of 2009 ’ 1 11" . La F?Ic4AfT~ pETITIONER ) gwl“ _ dam ChandrahaKu, son of Lam Bhushcm Lal Chandrah’ahu; aged 65’ “ __ years, residenf of Khapri, Tehsil Aarang, Dis’rricf Raipur. Vs RESPONDENTS / 1. S’raTe C wov n} H A—PPLDUTN‘T) of ,Chhaffisgar‘h, Through The Secrefar'y, DeparTmen‘r of Revenue & Calamity Management Manfralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur‘. x2. The CoHecfor‘, Raipur‘. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE Rxxaaxax‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA a; amt m . ?c9.£(¢)..2i§.lm m WWW S B Hon’ble Shn Justuce N In Aaarwal 16 12 2009 Shrl Dlnesh RK Tiwari, P dvocate for the petitioner. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for State; Heard on admission. order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P/1), passed by the responde t No. 1 in a revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.11.2005 passed by- the respondent No. 2, the instan petition has been preferred by the , petitioner According to Shri Tiwa I learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the petitioners app cation for exchange of land With the land of the State Governm has wrongly been rejected by the Collector, Raipur, and thesa order has wrongiy been affirmed by ,the’State Government, and herefore, the order passed by the respondent authorities are bad 'n law and deserve to be quashed l have heard the couns l for petitioner and perused the order impugned Undisputedly, the ex hange of land with the State Government cannot be claime as a matter of right The respondent authorities after conSidenng very aspects of the matter rejected the application preferred by the petitioner.. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this cou , the respondent authorities have not committed any jurisdictional Feeling aggrieved by t or warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the onStitution of lndia l 2 e i r lt is ll eled prinl of ts servisrydion u O ndi, shou reain ei r b t Cour bel xc iiey ulary r juct i eror s writ igaiit, irregit o risdi o th , which nhi f e record is not i't The ption s ,m ismissed in limie. lw hat thi ourt’, in exercise der ic 2 f the Constitution 1 interfeng wit the order passed suc e where perversity, onal r i large on the'face rnt cae. ' apese s ri and ae is accordingly at the sm Sd/- .K. Agrawal Judge ‘ [alsw we stt cipe i upojurisict r f Ia id fr itsf fo y he t ow, eept eti ha no l d n of a t s C i Artle 27 o 1 ri h in h cass N