VIOMIdO MOIiniIlSMOO 3H1 dO ^laTDliavyaaNaMoiiLiaj IRIM ^•^.•W) aiu^l -!^a<»u»W ^ ,-,ft^:^/»^.Bito/^ap0^-^^^<^^^.&'y!(£ - 'i '''""''" (;0'3) §JTIQ toi-qsiQ' 'qjEgBAVBfst- ^ -lisqBj'^ sdoqg-3§e{li^jo"tU9pis9j sjEsX gg yioqBp9gB'ni[BS tUBjnpBqf ijqg 3y3r~[ o/s nipg urejnqpf "^ (jnc[re-g ijno3imoji3) jndsEiig qjBgsiu^qqo 'snusAS^jo pjBog _ ~\ snsj3A ('O'O) SmQ. ; -^U^IQ ^^Aye^isqej^jB 9^inAJO luapissj ipog SXB3A. ^noqv ps'Sv nqeg urBjnq&tg ijqg o/s nqeg {i3r[ujBXqs SJB9X QS ^noqe p9gi3 nqi3§ uiBjni[fjigTjqs o/§nijBg ^jeXduiB'g -: siNaaMOjsay >.&ft •w -/^^ ^^^' •z^^' •I -: A«axjz,(t^.<^2> StiaNOiiiAad 'tvJI' OTOZ30""^^""ON^) NOI1I13J JLraM Zz? ^ndsv^a^v imvx>sixAVHH3 ^O IMI103 H9IH 3ELL 3na»NOH 3^0^39 BB»»«*ni< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. 5725/2010 PETITIONERS Rampyara Sahu and another Versus RESPONDENTS Board of Revenue and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J PR^^TO.::- '-•• ^••;::'i::.'; • •:;•..,.•' iri Ashok Kuraar '\?errria,, AdyoGate, for the petitioners. ^hri R.K. Kfisharwaiu, Adviocate'for the respQndeal No. 2. Shn Viilod Tekam,^PalietI»awyer,for the responderit No. 3. ORAL QRDER (24-2-2011) 1. With consent of theparties, matterisheard finaUy. 2. Instant pgtition is directed agaiiisf the order dated 27th July, 2009 passed in Revenue Revisiori No. RN/05/R/A-6/763/07 whereby the Board of Revenue allowed the revision preferred by the respQndent No. 2 mainly on the ground that the order of remand passed by the Sub Divisional OfGcer and affirmed by the ftdti^ to the provisions of Section 49(3) of the C.G. Land Revenue Gode, ^@59. : : '• 1:.::;.'':.': ' 1'1 ! • / , sSKri Verraa^ learned^ c^ petitioners drawn the attention of this cburt on tUe order of the Sub Divlsional Offieer (Ahnexure P-5) dated.23-'?-2!605 which shows that.in fact, the matter wasnof reirianded by the Sub Divisibnal GfBcer and in fact the order passed by the Tehsildar was, set aside but whi|le sending the copy of it to the Tehsildar, it ^has been i^eetedl to p^s Hnal order after giving opporfunity to boj±ithe parfies. Thig?part has^^^^ of Reveriue as part ofthe order which ±nfact is not part ofj tKe order. . :; •. . : •: : .: .;' 3» (A Shri Kesharwani, leamed counsel appearmg for the respondent No.2 would submit that in fact, the second part of the order by which copy has been sent to the TehsUdar is part of the order whereby the matter has been remanded to the Tehsildar. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and penised the order impugned. From. abare.perusal ofthe order passed by the Sub Divisional OfGcer, which has been affu-med by the Additional CoUector wOuldrGveal that vide iinpugned appellate order (he Sub Divisibnal Qfiicer has disniissed the order passed 'by fhe Tehsildar but while sending copy of it to,; the Tehsildar, a further direcUon has been given for passin^ final order ai the case after hearing both-the pariies. Same has been treated by the Board pf Reyenue as reniand order. In fact, it is orily administa-ative directipn issue^/by & Sub Divisional OfGcer to TeH^dar w^tiefc is subsequent to passing 6f the order, therefore, leamed Board of Revenue has erred in allo-wingthe revisiciri on the ground that the matter has been remanded by the Sub Divisionat Officer. ^.viero^crftMe'^Qvs^tlTO l>eti;tiQn'<teserves to,^ is hereby iaBowe<l. Tjh^'iH^u^ed;^)^^ asidfi. The inatter is it'^lnittisd^ BaekiAoTtiie1 Boaiii^ of''Revenue to decide the matter afrgsll? iiB^tlie ^gSat^of aSaove &bserv.atk>n ih aceordanee with law onits ownineilt.' ~ - ' Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge