Petitioners 1. Meera Devi Wlo Late Shri Tarachand Agrawai, Aged abaut 70 years 2. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Shri Tarachand Agrawal, Aged about 50 years 3. Ajay Kumar S/o Late Shri Tarachand Agrawal, Aged about 48 years 4. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Late Shri Tarachand Agrawai, Aged about 41 years. 5. Abhay Kumar S/o Late Shri Tarachand Agrawai, Aged about 36 years. (AH residents of Seth Basantlal Marg, P.5. & Tah. Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Krishna Kumar Agrawal S/o Ramkumar Agrawal Suresh Kumar Agrawal Slo Ramkumar Agrawal’ 3. Anand Kumar Agrawal S/o Ramkurhar Agrawal 4. Premchand Agrawal sfo Ramkumar Agrawal 5. Bishambhar Daya} Agrawal S/o Fakirchand Agrawal (All residents of Vishrampur, Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 6. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal 5/0 Baijnath Agrawai Respondents I L. *‘v IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHA'ITISGARH WRIT PETITION NO. 7340F 2004 y v; gwm§s a T mD \4‘ m 7. Radheshyam Agrawal S/o Baijnath Agrawal 8. Hariom Agrawal S/o Baijnath Agrawal 9. Savitri Agrawa! W/o Pushkar Agrawai 10. Mukesh Agrawa! S/o Pushkar Agrawai I 11. Naresh Agrawal / S/o Pushkar Agrawal 12. Nisha Agrawal D/o Pushkar Agrawal (All residents of Baikunthpur Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ‘ ‘ 13. Slo Ramkumar Balsukh Agrawal Das R/o \ Sadar Road, Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 14. The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Main Seat Bilaspur (Chh;tjtis’9arh) WRIT PE l ITIQN UNQgRARTICLE 2i/6/2éuF THE QONSTITUTION OF INQy FOR ;SSUANCE OF APPROPEIAKTE WR£TI WRITS4 . DIRECTIONIDIRECTIONS ETC. V As mentioned in the cause title. 2. PARTICUQBS OF RESPONDENI§ As mentioned in the cause titie. The Respondent No. 14 is a formal party as order passed by Learned Board of <1 Revenue is under chalienge and no relief has been sought against respondent No. 14. IIIGH CS3R’E 9F QHHA’E‘TESCmégRE A}? BKLASE’UR Wu? N0. ?84 6F 2694+ M€era Devi 8s Otherg VS. Krishna Kumar Agrawai 85 ()ihers ORDER POSt for $1~3~2004 Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge \\ HEGH COURT OF QEHATT1$G1§RH &T BILASPEIR W§=N Na. 77‘84 GE 2&94 Meera Devi 3a Oihers VS . Krishna Kumar Agrawal as- Others Shri Sanjay Kumar Agrawai, Counsd for the petitienérs, Shri N‘K. Agrawal, Dy. Advacate G€n€ral appears on behalf of respondent No. l4. QR3ER {gx-03—2004) It is pointed out by the harmed Dy. Advocate General ' that this writ petition haS been filed against the interim order he paseed by the Board of Revenue elated 03.03.2004. The Board of Reveuue stayed the order—dated 28.02.2004 passed by the Sub—Divisional Officer, Ambikapur in case No.71-A/A~ 2/200304, 2. it is pointed out by the counse} for the petitioners tha pursuemt to the ctecree of the Civil dourt dated 08.07. 1986 and as a result of mutua1 setttement dated 20.07. 1990, the petitioners filed an appiioation before the Tehsildar, Ambikapur for separation of their hokiirigs and the Tehsiidar Vide order dated 20.G8.1999 separated their holdings. The resporidents No.1 to 4 tiied an appeal against the order‘dated 24.08. 1999 passed by the Tehsiidar, Ambikapm‘ alongwith ah t 1 application for condonation 0f deiay before tha Sub—Divisionax Officer. It is p0énte<§ out than Without passing am; orda‘ 011 tha application for condonation of deiay the ordor of TehsLdar was sot aside and appeal was allowed as per order dateci 29.06.2002. 1t 13 Stated that agains‘t said order datea 29.062002 passed by the Sub—Divisional Ofiicer, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 44 of OG‘ /M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Commissioner and the Commissioner passed an interim order dated 09.67.2002 staying the effect and operation of the order passed by the Sub—Divisional officer. The said order dated 09.07.2002 was subsequentiy modified on 27.082002 stating that parties wiii not alienate the suit property. 3. it appears that since the Court of Commissioner \i7as abolished and in place of it the Board of Revenue was constituted, this matter which was earlier dealt with by the Commissioner, was taken up by the Board of Revenue. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.3 filed an application for diversion before the Sub—Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer Vide order dated 20.02.2004 granted application for diversion. The petitioners contended that this order dated 20.02.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is appela‘ole one before the Collect r but without filing the appeal before / the Collector, the respondents No.6 to 8 filed an application before ittoe Board of Revenue in the said appe i which was 04 f i filed by the petitioncrs and was pending before the Board of Revenue It is fm‘ther contended thaf the Board of Revenue Vlde unpugned order dated 03 O3 2004 has stayed the order L dated 20 02 2004 passed by the Sub D1v1$1onal Officer and flxed the case for fmal hearing. It 1s submltted by the learned eonnsel for the petitioners that the Board of Revenue was not at all justified in entertaining the application against the order of the Sub D1v1s10nal Officer It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue ought to have cons1dered that against the order of Sub D1v151onal Officer an appeal lay before the Collector It ls also contended that this pomt was raised before the Board of Revenue but the order has been passed by V the Beard of Revenue mechanically without ‘I considering any of‘the questions. It is contended that the w order is a cryptic one. 4. i Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record ’ ’the order sheets passed by the Commissioner and subsequently by the Board of Revenue. The interference sought for is under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India Learned counsel very fairly submitted that during pendency of this petition, the arguments before Board of Revenue have been heard and the case 1s closed for orders Since the arguments have been heard and the matter has; been closed and the questions have been raised before the? \ Board of Revenue and are Lmder consrderation, this Court; v: s is” e (A‘\ \ would rafrain from expressing 311y opinion ai miS juncture. In this conneciion, the judgment of Hon’ble Supmme Court in the caSe of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ramchancéra Rai 8a Oihers reported in 2003 (6} SCC 675 has dealt the matter regarciing exercise 0f powerS under Article 227 of Conetirurion exhaustively. In that View of the matter, e: the partiee await the order / judgment of the Board of Revenue and thereafter avail the remedy available untler law. 5. Learned couneel for the petitioners Shri Samjay K. Agrawal expreesed apprehension that he may not get Sufficient time. Learned Dy. Advocate General ‘l of the 1 State on the other hand submitted that there shoutd be no apprehension, a8 the authoritiee will act strictly in accordance with law. 6 Under the Circumstances, it is directed that once ah order i3 passed by Board of Revenue, copies be obtained/Suepiied as per rulee and due opportunity will be iven to tne parties to study the implications arising out of the order/judgment and they may challenge the same beiore the appropriate forum and for that reasonable time Le 15 days or so may he provided depending on the facts and circa istances. Let nothing be done in hot haste. T Lee ned counsel iastly raised an issue regarding non— acceptance of the notices by counsel appearing before the Board of Revenue on behalf of respondents r No.0r +to o. o rue s R.‘ w lloiices if delivered ought to have been accepted by the counsel as notices. are given to counsel with 311 object to facilitate early hearmg‘ Be that as it may, so far as :hiS case i3 concerned, no useful purpose will be served in making inquiry on that aspect of the matter. 8. Subject to What has been stated hereinabove, this: petition stands disposed of. Sdl— Fakhruddin Judge