Q? HEGE CQURT Q? CHEATTISGARH AT BELASPUR wRn‘ PETITION (227i No. 6454 of 2010 PETITIONER: Applicant in Rev-Pet Versus 1 . Won-Appiicant- 1 RESPONDENTS: Nen-Applicant-Z 2. Ramcharan Singh S/o Late Son Singh, ag€d abaui 55 years, by ' caste Gond, occupation cultivation 8r, service, R/o Village Kalyanpur, Police Station & Tahsil Surajpur, Dismct Surguja (CG). Vipin Kumar Sinha Sjo Late Narmada Prasad Sinha, aged about 4O years, by caste kayasth, R/o Viliage Kalyanpur, RS. 8:. Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja K{cc—x I Aashjkuddin S/o Abdul Hamid, agéd about 48 years, R/o V110 e Kalyempur, RS. 8n Tahsil ‘Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). Budhani Bai D/o Shivbalak, aged about 28 years, occupation House Wife. Sudhani Bai D/ 0 Shivbalak, aged about 52 years, occupation House Wife. Malnajiya Bai D/o Shivbalak, aged about 48 years, occupation House Wife. Respondente no. 3 to 5 are by caste Ghasiya belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Community and are resident of Village Kalyanpur, P.S. :35 Tahsil Surajpur, Distm'ct Surgutja (CG). State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). The Sub Divisional Offlcer, Ambikapur, District Surguja CG). WRIT PE’HTION UNDER ARTICLE 227 GF THE CONSTITUTION OF (S§ :Hon’ble Wit. T.P.Sharma, JJ Present:= Sln‘i Shahiti Ahmed i sari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' Keshav Dewangan, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State] respondents No. 6 & 7. Non-Applicants Non-Applicant4 4. Non—Applicant-5 5. Non—Apylicant—6 6 . INDIA. None for the respondents No; 1, 3, 4 6t. 5. ORDER @ (?assed on 13/09l201 1) 1. By this petition undsr Article 227 of the Constitution of India potitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 19,!8/2010 passed by Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in case No. M/ 16/ B—121/44/2010 dismigsing the petition by affirming the order dated 25/ 1/2008 passed by Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in revision case No. RN. / 16/R/B- 121/29/2007 whereby Board of Revenue has quashed the order granting permission for reviewing of the order to the Sub Divisional Officer, Surajpur by Additional Collector, Sarguja in revenue case No. 984/ B-12 1/2003-04 dated 23/ H2006. 2. Shri Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Akhil Agrawal, EL. for the State] respondents No. 6 85 ’7 are heard. Copy of the order impugned, copy of other orders, copy of application 85 copy of documents perused. 4, As per document of revenue record, Khasra No. 416 area 0. 12 htrs was owned by Budhani, Sudhani 62; Maharjiya who had sold the land to the present petitioner in the year 2002, thereafter same was leased out to Narmada Prasad Sinha by Sub Divisional Ofiicer vide lease dated 29/6/ 2002. After knowledge of aforesaid facts on the basis of application filed on behalf of the petitioner, Sub Divisional Officer applied for permission for review of its own order which was granted by Additional Collector, same was challenged before the Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue has quashed the order on ?4r pa / the ground that order passed by; appealable or revisable but instead of filing appeal or revisi’on, petitioner has filed review application. (go Ordar passed by Sub Divisional Omcer reveals that it was allotment of the land to the Narmada Prasad Sinha previously owned by Budhani & thereafter by present petitioner as Bhumiswami, although, order passed was expm‘te. In these circumstances, both the opu'ons were available to the Sub Divisional Oilicer to set-aside the order under the provisions of Section 35 of the CG. Land Revenue Code, 1959 or to review the order on the ground of illegality and incompetency. Additional Collector has rightly granted permission for review. While quashing such permission for review, Board of Revenue has not considered illegality committed by Sub Divisional Odicer grating lease of land of Bhumiswamz‘ to another person thereby committed an illegality. While not reviewing such order, Board of Revenue has committed again illegality and both the orders passed by Board of Revenue are not sustainable under the law. Consequently, both the orders are hereby quashed. Case is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Surajpur for reviewing the order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties shall remain present before the Sub Divisional Officer, Surajpur on 18,! 10/2011 for further hearing of the case. No order as to costs. Interim applications are stand disposed of. / f r sw— j r. SWma /