9>S?A> y°°3 VSCKSS, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (0 No.2660 of 2007 C^ PETITIONER/: (Non-applicant No.2) RESPONDENTS/: - (Non-applicant No.3) (Applicant) (Non-applicant No.1) Awadha @ Awadhram S/o Chhoti Ram Bhainna, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Taraigaon, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Throughthe Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Additional Collector Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Vishambhar S/o Bundu Bhainna, aged about 60 years, R/o Village Taraigaon, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur 6. Vishnu Rathore S/o Sukul Rathore, aged about 37 years R/o Village Taraigaon, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaopur (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: and4. made. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1, 3 None presentifor respondents No.2, 5 and 6. No representation is Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (6-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 13-3- 2007 passed by the Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Revenue Revision Case No.R.N./02/R/A-23/918/2006, reversing the '«? :^>. ls\ ^SVh I order dated 29-5-2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Pendra Road, in Revenue Appeal Case No.13/A-23/2004-2005 and restoring the order dated 22-7-2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pendra Road in Revenue Case No.05/A-23//2003-2004, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer has directed for restoration of possession of agricultural land under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code'). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copies of the statements, copies of revenue record, copy of the sale deed and other documents. 3. As per the documents and order impugned, the land was owned by Sukh Sen Bishambhar and other persons, one sale deed was executed in the name of the petitioner herein on 12-2-75, but name of the petitioner was not mutated in the revenue record. Subsequently, at the instance of respondent No.5 herein namely Vishambhar, proceeding under Section 170B of the Code was initiated and after enquiry, the Sub Divisional Officer, Pendra Road, has directed for restoration of possession in favour of respondent No.5 Vishambhar which was challenged before the Additional Collector, Pendra Road and the Additional Collector has reversed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, same was challenged before the Board of Revenue in revision. The Board of Revenue is competent to hear and decide the revision. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Board of Revenue has reversed the order passed by the Additional Collector and restored the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition was not maintainable before the revenue authorities on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. The petitioner herein is also a member of ab original tribe and, therefore, the transaction was not hit by the provisions of Section 170B ofthe Code. 5. The order impugned, copies of other orders and copies of statements of the parties reveal that the alleged transaction took place in the year 1975, but after such transaction the petitioner herein has not tried for mutation of land in his name till 2006 i.e. till the date of order of the Additional Collector. Even as per evidence of the petitioner, he is not in Soma possession of the land, but his daughter & son-in-law are in possession of the land since 1975. As per the report of the Patwari/revenue officer, respondent No.6 Vishnu Rathore, who is not a member of ab original tribe, is in possession of the land. Evidence of the petitioner clearly reveals that he is not resident of Village Taraigaon where the property is situated, he was never in possession of the property, his daughter & son- in-law are in possession of the land and his name has not been mutated in the revenue record. Revenue documents do not reflect possession of the petitioner herein or his daughter & son-in-law over the land in question. But report of the Patwari reveals that respondent No.6 Vishnu Rathore, who is not a member of ab original tribe, is in possession of the property. 6. On the aforesaid ground, the Sub Divisional Officer has rightly directed for restoration of possession and same has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue. While reversihg the order passed by the Additional Collector, the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality. There is no procedural lapse. 1 do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. —— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge