3if<p ^ Petitjoners Resoondents *^"1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.4886 of 1997 1. Saligram s/o Visheshwar aged 63 years 2. Maniram s/o Visheshwar aged 50 years 3. Labhoram s/o Visheshwar aged 45 <, yeare 4. Krishnachand s/o Visheshwar aged 4S yeare atl residents of VUIage Jarekela, P.CN No.37, Tahsil Ghaighodst. Dist.Raigarh. Vwsus 1. State of Madhya Pradesh through Secretary, Revenue Department, Vatlabh Bhawan Bhopal. 2. The Collector, Raigarh, Dislt.Raigarh, M.P.(NowC.G.) 3. The Sub Diyisional Officer (Civil), Gharghoda, DistRaigarh, M.P. (Now C.G.) 4, Rohna s/o Jagatram aged about 70 years 5. Kaliram s/o Jagatram aged 67 years 6. Chiru s/o Jagatram aged 50 years 7. Kodopura sto Jagatram aged 45 years residents of Viltage Jarekela, Tahsil Gharghoda, Dist.Raigarh. (Writ Petltion under Anicle 226 and 227 ofthe Constilution of India) Mr.Ashish Surana, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Akhit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 3/State. None present for respondente No.4 to 7. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER{ORAU (9-8-2011) 1. By this wrtt petition the petitioners have prayed for quashment of initiation of revenue proceeding at the instance of Sub-Divisionat Officer, Gharghoda -. ^^ ^ __._.__. in Case No.120/1996-97 under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgaiti Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code"). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, psrused the copy of ordersheet impugned and previous order dated 19.7.89 passed byths Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda in Revenue Case No.186/A- 23/88-89. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioners submits that ^fter due in<iuiry under Section 170-B of the Code, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda has rejected the claim of respondentsNo.4 to 7, but after lapse ofeight years again the Sub Divisionai Offlcer (Revenue), Gharghoda has initiatsd proceeding under Section 1 70-B of the Code and has applied for t permission to reviaw to the Collector, Raigarh and without application of mind, the Coliector, Raigarh has permitted to review relating to the order passed eight years back. Leamed counsel further submtts that it would be amount to complete abuse of process and without application of mind, any order especiaily the order for permission to review is not su^ainable under the law. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer Tor the State/respondents No.1 to 3 opposes the petition and submte that the revenue authorities have not passed any order against the petitioners and permission to review has been granted and the petitioners are having ample opportunity to defend their case. 5 From perusal of the order impugned and previous copy of the order, it appears that after passing of such order, although after aght years on the ground mentibned in Section 170-B ofthe Code, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gharghoda has applied for permission to revtew tts own order and after satisfaction, the Cotlector, Raigarh has passed the aforesaid order. Opportunity of hearing ofthe petitionere has not been denied. 6. In initiating proceeding and granting permission for review both the revenue authorities have not committed any illegality warranting interference in exercise ofsupervisoryjurisdictioR. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. However, it shall be obligatory to open the revenue authorities to provide complete opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before reviewing the earlier order dated 19.7.89 in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge