HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.7288 of 2010 <@ PETITIONERI: Govind Agrawal, age 50 years, S/o Late (Applicant) Kartik Shyam Agrawal, (village Hathlewa, Tahsil Sahaspurlohara, District Kabirdham) R/o Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. GopaL S/o Late Kartik Shyam Agrawal, 2. Girdhar, S/o Late Kartik Shyam Agrawal, Both above R/o P.S. Khamhariya, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C. G.) RESPONDENTS/: (Non-applicants) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the respondents. __________________________________________________ ___ Single Bench: Hon’bleMr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (12-7—201 1) 1. l.A.No.1 for taking documents on record is allowed. Documents be taken on record. 2. ‘Bywthis writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has ‘ challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 2-12-2008 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No.RN/OB/R/A—6(A)/536l2007 and the order ’dated 7—5-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Review Case No.RN/ O8/R/A— 6(A)/22/2009, whereby the Board of Revenue has restored the order passed by the Tahsildar while setting aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and the Collector. 3. As per case of the petitioner on the basrs of alleged partition the respondents have filed CIVII swt for deol/ration and injunction before the ciVil Court as well as application under Sections 115 & 116 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’) for correction of khasra entries, but without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein in whose name the land was recorded, the Tahsildar has directed for correction of entry vide order dated 30-1 2- 2005 in Revenue Case No.40/A/6(A) Year 2005-06 which was challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer in appeal vide Revenue Appeal No.33/6(A) Year 2005- 06. ln the light of sub—section (3) of Section 49 of the Code, the appellate Court was not competent to remit the case, but was competent to take additional evidence. On the aforesaid legal proposition, the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. the appellate Court has fixed the case for recording evidence and for providing opportunity to the parties, same was challenged before the Collector who has ( ' A @ dismissed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 18—6-2007. Thereafter, the order dated 18-6-2007 passed by the Collector was challenged before the Board of Revenue in revision and vide order dated 2-1 2-2008 the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and restored the order passed by the Tahsildar. 4. J have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition, the orders impugned, copies of other orders and documents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Tahsildar was not competent to correct the khasra entries under Section 116 of the Code and the application was also barred by limitation because, the petitioner has tiled for correction of entry relating to the year 1993. Learned counsel further argued that opportunity has not been provided to the petitioner for adducing evidence and while providing opportunity by the first appellate, the first appellate Court has not committed any illegality. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the order passed by the Tahsildar clearly reveals that the petitioner has made his appearance, he was duly represented by counsel and opportunity has been provided to him and, therefore, there is no question of re- examination and taking additional evidence, without any application filed on behalf of the parties. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was illegal per se and the Board of Revenue has rightly corrected the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 7. The order passed by the Tahsildar clearly reveals that the petitioner has made his appearance, he was represented'through his counsel also and it was the duty of the petitioner to adduceevidence before the Tahsildar in rebuttal, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not adduced such evidence, in absence of such evidence and on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents and the authorities of the Board of Revenue, the Tahsildar has passed the aforesaid order. Virtually in absence of any contrary evidence there is no option left to the Tahsildaritoipass the order for correction of entry. While passing such order, the Tahsildar hasnot committed any illegality and while correcting the order of the Collector, the Board of Revenue has also not committed any illegality. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. However, it is made clear that the observation and finding made in this order shall not effect the final decision of the civil suit pending between the parties. / / ’ 7’ Sdl- ‘ T.P. Shanna i Judge Soma