BBU,iillHBfB!!K':'.fc'B' :lllJti: 'ws x -^' HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARH.BiLASPUR .SingleBench: Hon'ble Shri H.L.uattu, CJ. Writ Petition Np. 1uu8 of2u01 Petitioners Respondents 1. Kheer Sindhu, Son of Bailoohan Sahu, aged about 55 years, 2. Indro, Son otBaitochan Sahu, aged about 45years, 3. Chandro, Son of Baitochan Sahu, aged about 40 years, 4. Brindavan, Son of Bailochan Sahu, aged about 37 years All are R/o Village - Atunda, Tah. & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Vs. 1. tndro, S/o Sardhakar, aged about 35 years, R/o Vl.ilage-'Banobhata, Tah. S Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Mahendra, S/o Sardhakar.aged about25 years, R/o Viliage - Banobhata, Tah.S Eistt. Mahasamund (C.Q.) 3. The State of Chhattisgarh Through-Sub- Divlsional Officer Saraipali 4. Tfie Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 5, The Commissioner, Raipur $C.G.) Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 bfthe Constitution of India. Present: Shri Suni! Sahy, counset for the petitioners (Passed on 26m April, 2007$ Petittoners claim that they are the owners of the lands in Khasra Nos. 34/1 Rakba 1.073 Hqtr, 34/1 Rakba 0.162 Hqtr., 34/1 Rakba 0.226 Hqtr., 34/1 Rakba 0.101 Hqtr. And 34/1 Rakba 0.530^ Hqtr.h^yjng purchased the same fram the father af respondents No; 1 and 2.:i (2) | Ttie'SDO has.taken suo motu prooeedings ;undeR:S^3tion 170B of the Chhafti^arh LandRevenue Code,'1959 (fbr shortj ;thel^is|e'),, ^.u^.r^htftll l^**^ ^, ISi/i', -^- After hofding the enquiry he had passed an order reverting baok the lands in question to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order petitioners had filed an appeal before the Colleotor who was the First Appellate Authority then. The Appellate Authority had also rejected the appea! filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had filed a revision before Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority ffas rejected the revision filed by the p.etitioners for non-prosecution. That is how the petitioners are before this Courtintllis writ petition. (3) In myoplnion, the petitionso filed by the petitioners cannot be entertained for the reason that, since the Revisionai ALithority has passed an order rejecting the revision petition for non-prosecution,ithe petitioners should have filed an application for restoration offrie said revision petition. But in the present case, the petitioners have rushed to.this Court vi'ithout exerojsing that option that was available to them. (4) in that view of the matter, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioners, however, are permitted to file an appropriate application before the Board of Revenye, since the post of Revisional Authority is now abolished, requesting them to recal! the eariier order passed by the Revistona) Authority and pass an order on merits of the case. If and when such applioat'on is filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue shall seoure the record and consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Oud 3^