HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILgPUR wm'r pmrrxou (227} no. mag/2011 MITIONER Non-Applicant Sonadevi, aged about 65 yeam, W/o Late Chandraqhekhai‘ Choudhaiy, R/o Vinége Janakpur, Tahsil Bhaxatpur, Distt. Koriya. Vasn: 1. State of Chhartisgarh through its Secmtaxy, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2' _ The Additional Collector, Manendxagarh, Diatt. Koriya Tahsildar Bhaxatpur, Distt. Koriya WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF ’H'IE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 3.‘ (BB :Hon’ble Mr. 1‘.P.Shatma, J.) Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Jhanwar P.L., for the State/respondents. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 15/07/2011} By this pen'u'on under Article 227 of the Constitution of India pemioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the onier dated 7/2/2011 passed by Additional Collector, Manendragarh Disuict Koriya (C.G.) in mvision case No. 04/A—6/2010-11 whemby Additional Collector, Manendxagarh District Koiiya (C.G.) in exercise of suo-motu revisional power has revexsed the order passed by Tahsildar relating to correction of entry in revenue recoxd. Respondents have made their appearance on the basis of advance copy fumished by me petih'oner to it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has issued nonce to the respondents in accordance with Rule 48 and 52 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh’ Rules, 2007 ( in short ‘the Rules 2007’) and has not dismissed the peu'tion summarily therefore respondents are under obligadon to' submit its return supported by an affidavit and thereafter petiu'on may be disposed of dually. @ 3. Leamed counsel for the petin'oner placed reliance in the matter ofUnion of Ind‘In & Ore, Etc. Etc. v. HI: Kandan mce Mills Ltd.1 in whir‘h Apex Court has held that at the time of adjudicating an interim matter categorical finding on merits by the High Court is not pmper. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as held by this Court in the matter of Prlttl Sahu v. Me of C.G. b Others” that second revision under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 is barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that provisions of Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Sectm'n 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land R€venue Code, 1959 ( in short ‘the Code’) relating to revisional power are same and identical. Therefore as per law declared by this Court in the matter of Prltr 81ml (Supra) and Secn'on 5O of the Code second revision is not barred. Being asked learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no alternate remedy of appeal or revision is available to the petitioner. 0n the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents opposed the petition. In the present petition no notice has been issued to the respondents in mrms of oRules 48 or 52 of the Rules 2007. Present respondents have made their appearance on the basis of advance copy furnished by the petitioner to them. They have made appearance on 20/6] 2011 and has prayed time for hling reply. Trial Court has not proceeded under Rule 48 or 52 of the Rules-2007. This is petition under Article 227 of the Consh’tu&n of India relating to order passed by Additional Collector Manendragarh in exercise of suo-rnotu revisional power. Order impugned and provisions of aforesaid law perused. Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Seotion 50 of the Chhatn‘sgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 are not identical. As held in case of AI '_goos AIR scw 7626 i 2005 (2) co. L.J. 49 Union of India t On‘ Etc. Eta. [Supra]. At the t’me of adjudicating an innerim matter deciding the case many was not pmper. 1 1. In the present case tial Court has not issued non'ce under Rules 48 or 52 of the Rules, 2007 and this is pmliminaxy stage, respondents am made their appearance on the basis of advance copy furnished by the peu'tioner. Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 leads as follows:- 50. Revision-(1) The Board or the {Settlemem Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement qmoer} may a1 any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for 1 x” the pwpose of satisfying itseWhimsey' as to legality or m“? \ propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Wimr subordinate to it/him callfor, and examine'the record ofany case pending before, or disposed of by sudt oyiaer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit:- Provided that— [i) no applieationfor revision shall be entertained— (a) against an order appealable mder this Code; (b) agairst an order of the settlement Commissioner under sedion 21 0; (c) against an order passed in revision by the settlement commissioner in respea of oases under S. 17GB, nor shall any sud: order be revised by the Board on its own motion (ii) no such application shall be entertained unless presented within sixty days to the settlement commissioner or the Colledor or the Settlement @oer as the case may be, or within ninety days to the Board of Revemtepom the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid time requisite fw obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded. We se ,a (iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard / ......v. , (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1)- i \ (i) when pmceeding in nespecl of any case have been commenced by the Board under sub-sedion (1) no adion shall be taken by the settlement Commissixmer or the Coilector or the Settlement Ceioer in respect thereof. (it) Where prooee$ngs in respect of any case have been commenced by the Settlement Commissioner under sub section (1) no action shall be taken by the Colleaor or the Settlement O_$cer in respea themot (iii) where proceeding in respea of any such mqe have been commenced by the Settlement Commissioner, Colledor or settlement O$wr under sub-sedion (1) the Board may either refrainfrom taking any adion under “this seaion in resped of sudt mse until the final disposal of such proceedings by the settlement commissioner or the Colledor or the settlement omega, as the mse may be, or may withdraw such proceedings andpass such order as it may deemjit. Omitted by C.G. ACT No. 1 1 of2003, w.e.f. 23/ 1 1/2002. (iv) Where proceeding in resped of any such case have been commenced by the Colledor or the Settlement (Wcer under sub-seaion (1) the Settlement Commissioner may either refrain from taking any adion under this sedion in respect of sudt mse until the jina! wsposal ofsudt proceedings by the Collector or the settlement omcer, as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedinw and pass sudt order as it may deemfit. Explanwon-For the purpose of this seaion all Revenue %cers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board. 12. As per Section 50 (1) (i) (c) of the Code second revision against the Older passed in mvision by the Commissbncr or Settlement Commissioner in respect of Section 17OB & (c) of the Code is bamd. Altrmatc exhaustive remedy of revision is available to the peu‘tioner under Section 50 of the Code but instead of taking mcoulsc of such exhaustive remedy available under the law pmscnt petitioner \ has med this peh'tion. Consequently, considering the availability of alternate ‘ @ remedy, petition med under Article 227 of thc Constituu'on of India is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 3,000/— payable to the opposite parity within 15 days mm today before the Revenue Comt. No onler as to costa. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge