HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP (227) No. 2411 of 2008 Dilip Kukreja Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others Post for pronouncement ofjudgmenVorders on '7 /09/2009. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge L. ..s^ss^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W.P. (227)No. 2411 of 2008 Rospondents Non-applicant No.2 Non-applicant No.1 Petitioner : Dilip Kukreja, aged about 30 yearS, S/o Mulchand Kukreja, R/o Village Puraina, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhgwan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, District Raipur (CG). 3. The Tahsildar, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG). 4. Smt. Satyabala Agrawal, Age not known to the petitioner, Wife of Dr. Ramavtar Agrawal, R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur (CG). Writ Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aciarwal. J.) Present : Shri TK Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for State/respondent No.1 to3. Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ORDER (Passed on V7 dayof September, 2009) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P/2), passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, in revision case No. RN/14/R/A-6(A)/709/2007, whereby and whereunder, the revision preferred by the petitiorier has been rejected affirming the order passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur, in revision case No. 108/A-6(A)/2006-07 dated 10.09.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are that, the 4th respondenl: moved an application on 15.12.2006 before the Naib Tahsildar, Raipur, for corrections/entry in the revenue map, as according to h6r there is no entry of her land bearing Khasra No. 23/3 Area 0.203 Hect in the revenue map. After publication of notice, the petitioner ""^. 'r":^ l^ j "•^^^^ ^/A preferred anobjection. After hearing the objection raised by the petitioner, and after holding that in the Patwari revenue map there is no entry with regard to Khasra Nos. 23/2 & 23/3 and that area of the map is torn, directed to correct the map as per the map whlch is a part of record of the Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, in case Ncl 34A/82 year 65-66 (Village Puraina). The 4th respondent went in revision before the Additional Collector, Raipur. The Additional Collector, vide order dated 10.09.2007, allowed the revision ^nd directed that the revenue map be corrected in accordance with the map annexed with sale-deed filed by the 4 respondent as per report of Revenue Inspector dated 02.02.2007. Thereagainst, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector and dismissed the revision. Hence this petition. Shri TK Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by Additional Collector and Board of Revenue is patently illegal;order passed by the Naib Tahsildar wag final order and no revision lies against that, therefore the order passed by the Additional Collector was without jurisdiction, and consequently the order passed by the Board of Revenue is also withoutjurisdiction. Per contra, Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 would submit that the case was fixed before the Naib Tahsildar for orders on objection raised by the petitioner, but the Naib Tahsildar, instead of deciding the objection, decided the rnain application itself which is without jurisdiction. Further more, by drawing attention of this court towards the fact mentioned in the order of Naib Tahsildar (Annexure P/9) "in the Patwari revenue map Khasra Nos. 23/2 & 23/3 are not mentioned and map is torn at that place", Shri Sharma submitted that in view of the fact that there is no -'^'. .»& Sahu entry of Khasra Nos. 23/2 & 23/3 in the revenue map, only the Collector has power to prepare/revise the map under section 107 (5) ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code'), and the Naib Tahsildar has no jurisdiction, and therefore, because the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar was without jurisdiction, so Additional Collector has rightly entertained the revision. In view of the above fact, the order passed is well reasoned order which was subsequently affirmed by the Board of Revenue, same deserves to be upheld and no need to interi'ere with the orders in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record and order impugned. Shri Sharma is right in submitting that when there is no entry in the map and its entry is required in the revenue map then it is not a case of correction of map, but is a case of preparation/revision of revenue map, and under section 107 (5) ofthe Code, the jurisdiction lies with the Collector and not with the Naib Tahsildar. In view of the above, the application preferred by the 4th respondent before the Naib Tahsildar was itself without jurisdiction. The 4th respondent ought to have filed the same before the Collector under section 107 (5) ofthe Code. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. In the facts situation of case, I deem it fit to remit the matter to the Naib Tahsildar to hear the matter afresh and if he finds that the case is one under section 107 (5) of the Code, then he shall return the application to the 4th respondent to file the same before the jurisdictional Collector, else he may proceed with the application, on its own merits, in accordance with law afresh. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge