^- M<9^ I^.V "^fa W THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT PETHIONERS: BILASPUR w.p.ro No. 6lii of 2011 {. SanjayS/o BudhRam, 3. Naresh Shriwas S/o Budh Ram, \,.^ ^^'. ^y/y ..r'\ c\ ^^ ^y v 3^ PramUa D/oBudhRam, 4^ ShantiBai W/oBudhRam, AU Resident of Village Jaijaipur, TahsU- Jaijaipur, District-Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. JhaduRam S/omohitRam 2. Rameshwar S/omohitRam 3.^ Jageswar S/o mohit Ram Bai D/o niohit Rain All Resident ofViliage Jaijaipur, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, District Janjgir- Champa, (C.G). WRTT PETHION (JNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTCTION OF VNMA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRTT IN TECE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORAM, PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUTTABLE WRTT OR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: Writ Petition (C) No.6365 of 2011 1. Sanjay S/o Budh Ram, 2. Naresh Shriwas S/o Budh Ram, 3. Pramila D/o Budh Ram, 4. Shanti Bai W/o Budh Ram, All Resident of Village Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa Versus 1. Jhadu Ram S/o Mohit Ram 2. Rameshwar S/o Mohit Ram 3. Jageswar S/o Mohit Ram 4. Amrit Bai D/o Mohit Ram All Resident of Village Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa {Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Sinflle BenchLHon'ble hflr. T.P. Sharma. J ORDER (14-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 12- 8-2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Review Case No.RW/06/R/A-6/15/2009, whereby the order dated 3-12-2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Case No.RN/06/R-A-6/ 765/2007 has been recalled by allowing the review petition, and finally restoring the order dated 5-9-2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Janjgir-Chahipa and the order dated 18-5-2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sakti. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sakti has been directed to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the appeal afresh. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other documents. ->.\ 3. While passing the order dated 12-8-2011 by the Board of Revenue and recalling the earlier order, the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality, inter alia, it has corrected its erroneous order dated 3-12-2008. No final order has been passed by the Board of Revenue requiring interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Parties are still in a position to contest their case before the Sub Divisional Officer. 4. Consequently, 1 do not find any scope of interference in the order impugned. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine. No order as to costs. 5. I.A.No.1 standsdisposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge