HIGH CCURT OF CHHATTQSGARH: BSLASFUR t Writ Petitiomgt’gm 1 of 20G2 PETlTiOMERS 1. La} Chane! Jain. 2. Prakash Chand Jain. 3. Subhash Chand Jain. 4. Satish Chand Jain. AH sons of Late Shri Kaiyanmat Jain and an resJdent of Chudi Line, Goie Bazar, Ra§pw (CG). Veriug RE$PONDENTS 1. State 0f Chhatiisgarh thraugh the Caiéectm, Ra§pur. 2.. Narayan Agrawa! scn of Shri Ramcharanial, Agrawai, resicient of Aminpam, Rapu! {CG}. (Writ Petition under Artieie 226/227 of the Constitutmn of fhdia) SB: Han’b!e Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, .L PrééEE'“w ¥ Mr. BP. Shanna, counsel fof the peiitioner. Mr. R. Agrawal, Panet Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER. N (Passed on this 2.2““ day afSept‘ember, 20033 Learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that through-out the petitioners were not present in case before the authorities below on account‘of unavoidabie circumstances. The Tahsiidar,by order dated 29—9— 2000 (Annexure W5) proceeded against the petitioners. in appeai, before the Sub Divisionai Officer, after having noted the fact that ex pane order was passed, the Sub Divésionai Officer by order dated 23—3-2001 (Annexure P17) remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration and decision after - \affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with iaw. ~ \ \.__\ \ 2} Being aggrieved against the order dated 23-34001 (Aanexura 91?), the respondents pieferred a revisiun under Section 50 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1953 (for short, "CGLRC 195$?) before the Additienai Coiiector, Raipuf. The revision was dismissed by order eated 26-11-20?! (Annexure Pl8) and the omer dated 23—3-2001 (Annexare Pl?) passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer, was maintained. 3) Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by order dated 12—6-2002 (Annexure PMG) without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, quashed the order dated 23—3-2001 (Annexure Pl?) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and ihe order dated 26-11—2001 (Annexure F’l8) passed by the Additionai Coilector, whereby the matter was remanded for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to aii the parties to the Tahsiidar as he passed the Carder ex parte against the petitioners. The order dated 29-9-2000 (Annexure P/S) was maintained which was ex parte. 4) t have heard teamed counsei appearing for the petitioners, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto. it appears that the Tahsitdar and the Board of Revenue have not considered the case tn its true perspective. The appiication for mutation is provided under the provisions of $ection 110 of the CGLRC 1959. The requirement under Section 110 of the CGLRC 1959 is to afford an ooportunitv of hearino to ati the concerned parties and sailing for report from Patwari. The‘same were not compiied with. There is a gross irreguiarity and the orders passed by the Sat) Divisionai Qfficer and the Additionai Coiiector. were in accordance with law. wherebv the case was remanded to the Tahsiidar for fresh decision after foiiowing the provisions of Section 11S of the CGLRC 1969 in its ietter and spirit. No prejudice wouid be ceased to either party, if Tahsiidar is direoted to take a fresh decision on the appiication of the respondents, after affording an ‘ apportunity of hearing to the {espondents and camng a fiesh report from Patwari concerned. 5) m View of the foregoing, the petition i3 disposed of; The wder dated 12-6-2002 {Annexure PH 0‘, passed by the Board of Reversue is sei aside and the order dated 23-3~2001 (Annexure Pi?) passed by the Sub D§vis§onal Gfricer and the ordel dated 26—11 e200”! {Annexure P/8) passed by the Additiona£ Sweeter, are maintained. Consequeméy, M‘W.P.NMG.16?7/2QO2 sands disposed of. 6) The matter being old, Tahsildar is expeoieci to consEder and pass the order, in accordance with §aw expediiiousiy. If the reepoadents feei aggrieved by this order, they are at liberty to approach this court for appropriare reliefr Raiu sdi Satish K. Agnihotri Judge” .7 7