C ‘ HIGH COURT GF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (22?) No. 1 1 6 9f 2099 Petitianers 1) Dular Singh Sonkar, S/o. Shri Sitaram (Non~applicants} Sonkar, aged abou: 40 years, resident of viiiage Mathpurena, P.C.No.1‘05, Raipur, Tahsi! & District Raipur (CG). 2) Smt. Kamla Bai, W/o. Dmar Singh, aged about 3O years, resident of Viilage Maihpurena, P.C.No.105, Raipur, Tahsii & District Raipur (CG). Vers us Respondemg 1. Pitamber Singh, S/o. Shii Chandrika (AppHcants) Prasad, resident of village Mathpurena, Raipur, Tahsii & District Raipur (CG). 2. Tapan Singh, Si’o. Shri Chandrika Prasad, resident 9f Viilage Mathpurena, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of india) SB: Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. .Present: Mr. RS. Patei, counsei for the petitiener. ORAL GRDER (Passed on this 12‘” day of January, 2009) By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order dated 5-8-2608 (Annexure Pi1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. RN 55iA/70/2005-2006. wherebv the Revenue Board has observed as under: W é e1? more!!! 1i Data; 30.10.2005 an manen/emimmmmwmeom awmmrmii‘uqm mar/maxi 199a—99 anmmai‘rmwafrsiwwwwnw Wdmai$3in1inmaffmnfiimnw¢n wwmweiwwmwasimew mowemm mm.e§§amié.wli mwwaimdaie/‘weimqaawm 5. eimeamneniomuiwa‘atretnewtm \ mamaaiwdwnhuadrslnemiaamm A m$13q€ta€i s. w:wuw$muafmaf$ammm@ wWmn§w§%u§€$m@wm§ Hmw$mmarml 7. womawmwmawoa a? m m.waiw.w$iww§wimmm mwgglimmm§! 2) I have heard Reamed counsel for me petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the otiginal Patta was never produced before the authorities below. The Patta, in originai, was produced for the first time before the Board of Revenue, which was found doubtful by the Board of Revenue. l am of the considered opinion that the finding of the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from jurisdictional error, irregularity or illegatity. Thus, the order is unexceptional and needs no interference. 3) lt is well-nigh established that this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, should refrain twelf from interfering with the order passed by the courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. ,.\ 4) ln View of the /:9rego_in§,; this petition is dismissed, in limine. Consequently, l.A.No.1 for grant of ad-interim relief also stands dismissed. . ‘l s'dl— i‘l Satish K. Agnihotri :l l l l Judge Raju m