C .F. [6 IN THE HIOHCQURT OF GHHftTnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( 227 ) No.'?-5^^ Of 2010 BETWEEN Smt. ShaUendri Bai D/o Hagru Das, W/o Ramesh Kumar Mahra, aged aboutSjff'years, R/oViUage Budera, Tahsil Berla, District Durg(CG). ^L-. ^ ./<^! (^IP^ PETITIONER ApP^f'C^n)-?- AND <?t<5,^.- /l. Uttam Kuinar S/o Aajurain, R/o Village Budera, ^ • ~ • ' - • Tahsil Berla, District Durg (CG). ^'Z.NarmadaBaiD/oHagrudas, W/o Premlal Mahra, R/Q Hathidom, TahsU Saja, District Di-u-g(CG). Sl Gangarajn S/o Dayarain, R/o ViUage Budera, Tahsil -y/ Berla, District Dtirg (CG). RESPONDENTS (^OW^ fl pp^<£^A5r- WRTT PETn'ION UNDERARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^. HIGH CQURTQF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTTPETmONC227) No.7094of2010 PETmONER RE8PQNDENT8 Smt. Shailendri Bai. VERSU8 Uttam Kumar & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA ! : - ; : : 1: '•;::.1:'11 8B: Htm'bte ShriSatisU K. Aenihotri,J. Present: Smt. IndiraTripathi,Advocateforthepetitioner. ORDERfQRAD (Passed on 24mday of February, 2011) : 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 08.11.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Circuit Court, Raipur, in caseNo. R.N.05/A-56/408/2010 whereby theapplicationforgrantofstayofllie executionoftheQrderdated 6.9.2010, was rejected by the Revenue Board. 2. The facts, in nutshelL as projected by the petitioner are that the father of the petitioner was the ex-Kotwar of village Buidera, Patwari Halka No. 4, Tahsil Berla, District Durg. After Iris death, applications were invited for appointment of the Kotwar by the Tahsildar, Berla. The petitioner as well fhe respondents made an application but the Tahsildar, Bwla, appoiated the respoadent No. 1 as Kotwar, vide prder dated 30.12.2008. Beingaggrieved, fhe petitioner filed an appeal beforethe Sub Divisional QfBcer, Saja, District Durg, wUch was allowed videorder dated 30.06.2009. .,• . • ' • •. Against Ae said order, tiie respondent No. 1 also preferred an appeal before the Additioiial Commissioner who set aside -ttie order offhe Sub Divisional QEEcer aid afBnnedthe order passed by the Tahsildar an 30.12.2008, vide its orderdated 06.09.2010. Tlie J 4. petitioner also chalienged the said order by way ofrevision petition beforethe Board ofRevenue, alongwitfa an application far stay of execution oflhe order dated 06.09.2010. The Board ofRevenue gTanted an interim order and directed the parties to maiataia statos quo. The respondent No. lcaused his appearaace inthe matter and filed his written arpunent on 02.11.2010. Later on, the Board of Revenue, by its order dated 08.11.2010 rejected the application for fhe petitioner for grant ofstay. Thus, this petition. Smt. Tripalhi, leamed eounsel appearmg for the petitionersubmits that the leamed Board ofRevenue, instead ofdeciding the appeal on merits, has rejected the application ofthe petitioner for grant of stay ofthe orderandhas fixedthe case for hearingfmally whenfhe Board ofRevenue has itself, orderedto mamtain status quo atthe earlier point oftime. Thus, the impugied order dated 08.11.2010 is unjust and improper. On perusal oftfae order dated 08.11.2010, it is apparertt that the Board of Revenue has speeifically held that no irreparable loss would be caused ifstay is not granted. Further, ithas also heldfliat the balancs ofconvenience lies in favour ofthe respondefiit No. 1. The matter is still pending consideration before the Board of Revenue for final disposal. Even other wise, nojurisdictional error, infimuty or irregularity has been pointed out by Ifae petitiouer m tfie impugned order aad as such, no interferenee is WMranted at this stage. '^t^ < Amit 7. 8. The Supreme Court, m Abdul Razak'^D^thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others^, observed as under: "21...There have been several other instances in whieh different High Courts have passed orders in exerciseofpower undar Articles 226 or227 ofthe Constitution of India disregardmg the lumtations ^ idetitified and mdicated by fcis Court in several decisions on tiie exereise of that power, We hppe - aad trust that inluture the Hi^i Courte would keep m view the limitatioas of certiorari jurisdtetioa/ supervisoryjurisdictionaadre&auifi'omdeciding the writ petitions filed under Artiele 226 or petitions/a}q}lications fileditnder Article 227 oftiie Constitufion as if they are adjudicatmg appeals filed againstlhe orders ofthelowereourtsoTother judieiaI/quasi-judicialbQdies/authorities." The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty &Anotherv. RajendraShankar Patil2. In the case on hand, nojurisdictional error, infimuty or irre^ilarity has beea pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exereise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Consttortion of India, is not inclined to interfere wilh the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. " Applying the weU settted prmciples oflawtothe faets Qfthecase, no iittecference is warranted. Thus, fhe petition fails and is dismissed. However, Ihe Board ofRevenue is directedthe consider and decide the pending revision as early as possible, prefCTably wilhin a period ofthree monfhs irom ths date ofreceiptofajsopy ofthis order. \ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '2010 AIR SCW 1414 2 r" (2010) 8 SCC 329