-^?^;;^ 'cf IILTHEHIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P.(C.tN0.^5>/ /2007 Jagdish Prasad Choubey S/o Parshuram, aged about 66 years R/o Village - Bandiya Khar, Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.). VERSUS PETITIONER ^N-AWLKWT e- RESPONDENTS ^PfLLCiqtVf77-S <fc ^ ^ ./-.")'. \") 4^^ ^ 9> '6-' 1. Daduram S/o Luduram. (S in c-e- 2. Prakash S/o Luduram. 3. Bandhnu S/o Luduram. 4. Sukhuram S/o Luduram. 5. Kusum S/o Luduram. 6. Chhote Mundari S/o Luduram. All are by caste Uranv and residents of Village - Bandiyakhar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.) 7. State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- Collector, District - Jashpur (C.G.). 8. Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTI - y- TUTION OF INDIA. ^ HJGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3191 of2007 PET] NON-APPLICANT Jaedish Prasad Choubev S/o Parshuram, aeed about 66 yeara R/'o Village - Bandiya Kliar, Tahsil - Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. DaAiram S/o Luduram. (Since dead) 2. Prakash S./o Luduram 3. Bandhnu S/o LudtU-am 4. Sukhuram S/o Luduram 5. Kusum S/o Luduram. 6. Chhote Mundari S/o Luduram. All are bv caste IJranv and residents of Villaee - District usriciiv<:iiciia.r. i siisii Jashpur (C.G.). Pattha!gaou, ?t^ n.-£1 ./~ti~^.^+*: iSLUls OJ. ^/ilHcilLiSgfctI'iI* 111TOU| Dismct - Jashpur (C.G.~ Fnit uouector. ;. Board ofRevenus CMiattisgarii. Bilaspur (C.G.) WKlT PE'I'ITION U^DES. ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Preseiit: Siaigie Beach : Bon'Me -lastfce Shri Satisfa K. Agmhotri. S'u-i Bhuoeiidra Sm.gfl, Advocate tor the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthv, Dv. Advocsts General fbr the St (Passed oa 1 lm day ofJune, 2007) ^- 1. T&e petitioner, by this petition, filed under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India, challenges the legality and the validity of the order dated 02.04.2007 fAnnexure P/5) passed bv the Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No. R-118/A-23/2004-05. The fatfaer of the respondeats 1 to 6 Luduram, who was notified as aboriginal tribe, made an application through Pow-er of Attomey holder to the Sub Divisional QfEcer (Revenue) Pattfaalgaon on 10.02.202 on the ground that the land in dispute bearing khasra no. 150 at village Baadiyakhar was sold to the petitioner. fhe non-tribal. '\a ^) 3. The Sub Divisional officer vide order dated 20.06.2002, in exercise ofits power under section 170-B of fhe M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, directed restoration of 0.158 hectare ofland to the ab-orianal Iribe, the father ofrespondent No. 1 to 6. The house situated on area 0.016 faectare was retained by the petitioner. The Collector, vide order dated 9.11.2004, ailowed fhe appeal filed by fhe petitioner on the ground that the sale ofthe disputed land took place in accordance with the permission eranted by the tfaen Collector. The respondent No. 1 to 6 preferred a revisioa before the Board ofRevenue. The Board ofRevenue, after having eonsidered all the aspects ofthe matter, came to the eonclusion fhat the value ofthe land was Rs. 33,635/- and fte petitionsr has paid a sum ofRs. 2800/. Thus, fhe order passed bv the Collector was not in accordance with law. The revision was allowed and the same was rermtted back to the Collector, Jashpur, to pass a fresh order afier affbrding opportumty ofhearing to the parties in aecordance witfa 3aw and also after having examined the saaction order passed by the Collector. Leamed eounsel appearmg for the petitioner cfaallenges the validity offhe impugned order on the ground tbat aothing remains to be decided for fhe Collector as fhe land in dispute was purchased by the petitionei' and tfae value ofthe land on fhat point oftime was only Rs. 2800/-. Even the case ofthe respondents 1 to 6 was that some land be allotted to them for their Be that as it may. On perusal of the impugned order as well as other ordere passed by fhe aufhorities below, there is no uTegiilarity, mrisdictional error or infirmitv found in the impuaied order. ^- 5. It is well settled principle oflavvthat under Articie 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, this Court has jurisdiction ofjudicial review ofthe order passed by the Court below- in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face ofthe proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law or fliere is grave failure of iustice or arave injustice has occasioned thsreby. Further, this Court should refrain itself from entertaming a petition in its supen'ison' jurisdiction if there is no perversity, irregularity or illegality iii the process of decision, not in the decision itself. 6. Applyine the above settled principles of law to the facts ol the preseat case, it does not warrant interference with the decision passed by the Court below. 7. Thus, this petition is dismissed, sunimarily. No order as to costs. Sd/- -.- SatishK.Agmbotti Judge .: ¥• ;-<Uii. Amit