Q) ^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (227) N0. 624 OF 2010 PBTITIONBR APPLICANT RBSPONDENTS NON-APPLICAHTS Anup Kuinar Soni aged 48 yrs s/o Shri Jauak Prasad Soni i~/o Bramha Road, Am.bikapur Distt. Surguja CG Shobharani Matlik w/o Shri SunU Kumar MaUik r/o Nehru Nagar (Digama) Ainbikapur Distt. Siuyija CG Ramesh Sarkar s/o Shri Aswaai Sarkar r/o Nehru Nagar Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja CG The Secretary, Revenue Department State of CG DKS Bhavaa Raipur CO. The Board of Revenue Throueh; The Secretary to the the Board of Revenue Near Mungeli Naka uuaspur uu WRIT PETXTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hoa'bIe Mr. T.P.Snarma, d.) Present:- Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Shyani Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 . Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. forthe State/respondent No. 3. None for the respondents No. 2 8s 4. ORDER VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. (Passedoa 07/12/2011} By fhis petition luider Article 227 of thc Constitution of India petitioner has challenged fhe legality and propriely of the order dated 8/5/2009 passed by Board of Revenue, Chbattisgarh, Bilaspur m revision case No. R.N./16/R-A-21/13/2007 whereby Board of Revenue ia exercising revisional jurisdiction has reversed the order dated 26/12/2006 passed by CoUector Sargiija in revenue review case No. 18/A-21/2005-06. Mr, Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Saajay Shyam Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 & Ms. Saageeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 3 are heard. As per iindisputed facts of the case Ramesh Sarkar after obtairung permission froni CoUector under Section 165(7-B) ofthe C.G. Laad ...,^a»£i V :3^w ^;v ^ • . ^/ .^ ,«s^ 4. 2- Revenue Code, 1959 ( ia shortthc Code') has executed sale deed in favour of fhe present petitioner aad as per claun of respondent No, 1 prior to execution of such sale deed fafher of respondent No. 2 had akeadv executed an aereement to sell ui favour of fhe present respondent No. 1. On the basis of aforesaid agreemeat respondent No. 1 had filed application for review of fhe order graatiag permission before the CoUector Sarguja which was disinissed by CoUector Sarguja saine was chaUenged before the Boanl of Revenue under Section 50 of fhe Code. Respondent No. 1 has also filed civfl suit No. 76A/06 before fhe 4th Civil Judge Class-2, Ambikapur for pennanent injiuiction and damages again.st petitioner, respondent No. 2 aad one Rataa Sarkar. Respondent No. 2 has executed sale deed ia favour of the petitioner after obtaining necessary pennissioh froin CoUector under Section 165(7-B) of fhe Code. Fafher of respondent No. 2 has not executed sale deed ia favour of fhe respondent No. 1, he has not obtauied permission under Section 165(7-B) of fhe Code, respondent No. 2 has not applied for graat of permission to seB disputed property to respondent No. 1. In fhese circunistances respondent No. 1 was not haviag focus - sfandi' for fili&g petition of reviewing or recattmg fhe order passed by CoUector even ofherwise she has already kaocked CivU Coiu-t by fiUng civU suit relating to same property. In these circuinstances Board of Revenue was not competent to reverse the order passed by CoUector and by passing order impugned Board of Revenue has comiaitted an fflegaMty. Consequentiy, order impugned dated ^8/5/2009 deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Interim application staads disposed of. TT> shai Judge fc-