^ IN THE mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WMT PETITION (2271 No. £16° /2010 PETITIONBR f>t9i,>nW+-^- ?-'.0-<'' \ .^(S^- ^..^^^ '^<:....--'" ^^ ^^- RESPONDBNTS ^"Ashok Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Shri Kaluwa Ram Yadav, Ex- Army Man, R/o VUlage Temri, P.H.N. 115/54, Tahsil & District - Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1: State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). ^' 2. Ajay Nag, S/o Late Shri Gaurav Chand Nag, Aged abeufr ¥©afis,R/o Quarter No. 4, Plot No. 18 Mana Canap, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G;). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2270FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.6160 of 2010 PETITIONER Ashok Kumar Yadav. Versus RESPONDBNTS State of Chhattisgarh and another. ^ O R D ER For Pronounceinent of Order 2.2- .07.2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^^t^: ^'•^^ j <S5^ y ^^w- ^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.6160 of 2010 PBTITIONER RESPONDENTS Ashok Kumar Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another WRIT PETITIONITNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Afifarwal. J.) Present : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, G.A. for the State/respondent No.l Mr. B.P.Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDBR (^^.07.2011) The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.R-N/14/R/A-59/375/2010. 2. Brief facts of case are: (i) One Colonel Shantipad Nandi was Government lessee of land bearing Kh. No. 409/A, area 2.023 hectares. Patta was granted in his favour in the year 1972-73. On 28.9.1985, he became the Bhoomiswami of the above land. Some villagers including Shambhu, Charandas Kumhar, Dhaniram, Dujeram, Fouder, Jagdish and Hemlal preferred an appeal against the order of mutation dated 28.9.1985 before the S.D.O. Raipur. The S.D.O., having found that the above order of mutation has been passed without hearing the persons, who are in fact in possession of the property, set aside the order and remanded the matter to Tahsildar '% ^ for deciding afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all the partles. (ii) Thereagainst, an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division. The Additional Commissioner held: the land was allotted in favour of Colonel Shantipad Nandi under the Revenue Book Circular (for short <R.B.C.?); against the above order, the S.D.0. is not empowered to exercise power of suo- moto revision; power of suo-moto can be exercised by the Collector and set aside the order dated 4.5.1987 with a direction to Collector to hear the matter in exercise of his power of suo-moto revision afresh and pass the appropriate orders. The revision preferred thereagainst by the villagers was dismissed by the Board of Revenue holding the same as not maintainable. (iii) Thereafter, the Collector in exercise of its power of suo-moto revision cancelled the patta granted in favour of Colonel Shantipad Nandi and directed for vesting of the land in the State. (iv) At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application for allotment of above land before the Additional Collector. In exercise of power conferred under R.B.C. Part-4, Sl.No.3, the Additional Collector granted the patta of above land in favour of the petitioner and also directed the S.D.0. to issue patta in petitioner's favour after separating the above land from the Nistar Patrak under Section 237 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code'). (v) The respondent Ajay Nag preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the order dated 23.06.2001 passed by the Additional Collector whereby the patta earlier granted in favour of Colonel Shantipad Nandi was cancelled (vi) The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 15.07.2010 has set aside the order dated 23.6.2001 passed by the Additional Collector. The petitioner herein preferred a revision thereagainst before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order 1, '••^-•»£.:i.:^^^ s-,.^^y W M D impugned dismissed the revision holding it as not maintainable. Hence, this petition. 3. Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: the patta granted in favour of Colonel Shantipad Nandi was cancelled by the Additional Collector due to violation ofprovisions contained in Section 165(7) ofthe Code. The respondent should have filed the appeal challenging the above order ofAdditional Collector before the appellate authorities under the Code. Instead of filing the appeal under the provisions of the Code, the respondent has preferred the appeal taking shelter of executive instructions contained in R.B.C. which itself was not maintainable. The Board of Revenue should have noticed the above fact and should have entertained the revision preferred by the petitioner. The order impugned on the face is perverse, illegal and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit: the Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner as the Additional Commissioner has passed the order in exercise of its power under R.B.C. and not under the Code. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. A bare perusal of the order of Additional Collector dated 23.6.2001 would reveal that the same has been passed under the executive instructions contained in R.B.C. and not under the Code •^-••-y^"^ ^ ^ A •.;:-.>.... ^"'' /'" ^sy °)\ a as contended by Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, respondent No.2 has preferred an appeal in accordance with executive instructions contained in R.B.C. The Board ofRevenue cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the order passed by the authorities under R.B.C. 7. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Board of Revenue warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of Additional Commissioner dated 15.07.2010 before the appropriate forum. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge