m $§§W mm lNé THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTiSiiARi-i w.rr. N6. ’1 l 0 O ' 12606 PETiTiGNER / Kaiawa‘ti Minz, Aged about 52 years, D i0. Boderam Ua raOn, 0ccupa‘tion Agn‘cu‘l’ture, Rio. Viiiage- Ajirama, Post Jaihagar, Tah. Surajpur, District -Surguja: (Cb) r/ WVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CDI‘iSTiTUIiGN OF iNDiA \ \j VE‘SUS RE$PGN§EN¥$ / 1] State of Ch'na‘t‘tisgarn, Through: Coiiector, Surguja (Lb) / Z] Board of Revenue, ' Through: its Members, Chha‘t‘tisgarh, Biiaspur (CG) 3] Coiiec‘tor, surguja, District ~Surguja (CG) 4] SILC. Surajpur, District -Surguja (CG) .g' $ ’QWL— Dz )3 /06 (,5] Kheena Giri, S/o. Jaikaran Gosai, Aged CLERK to Aa G. 31LASPUR about 65 years, Rio. Ajirama, Post Jainagar, Tah. - Surajpur, Diistrict Surguja (LU) 06.03.2006 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, lcz Shri Yashwant Singh, Cm Heaxd on admission. W This is a petition’ Em ll nnder‘ Article '226/227’of th Constitution of India 'challelpging the validity of ottler date 29/11/2005 passed by the Collector and also the cider dated ‘ ‘ 31/01] 2006 passed by the Bo; ard of Revenue; It appears that in a sun motu Revision initiated by the Collector under Section 50 of the C G Land Revenue Code 1959 an objection was raised by the petitioner that smce the ‘ RCVIsmn has beEn mmated o ' party with an application 01% . Act, the’reforc 1t cannot be c. and m‘stly, the apphcahon 0k have been d1sposed of. I- impugned cider dated, 29/ 1 1; and uhim‘ately, fixed the matte Learned counsel for thc of the Collector amounts to by; of tho Limitation Act as a Revcnue Codcalong with the as them are also powers to of the party; His further submission is that if the Revision is rty, the question of lumtaho etc - Eeéi at the instance of the pa ‘rned counsel for the’petitioner. wt. Advocate for the State. p the application of the oppostte under Section 5 of the Limitation. itego'rized as a suo mom revision d tor condonation of delay should - [owever, the - Collector vide the 2005 overlooked these objecnons r for final hearing petitioner submits that this acuon passing the pmsmns of Section 5 ' Section 50 of the CG. Land rs to hear suo motu‘revision, a Revision died at the instance i i v \ i w 1 h e' d e XI—HC-22 r would comeir'in the way and a be possmlc The onier passed by th‘ Collector was challenged before Bomti of Revenue also took the Le order passed by the Collector. [inSel for the petitioner is almost ‘ 'the same, which ho raised bd‘l‘ore the Collector and 1this Com Quoted just hem'm above. In light of the aforesaid: submissions, I do notiind any petition at this intermediate stage} :fore the Collector is not at all ’ the Boald of Revenue and the similar View and con£rmed t} The submission of learned co dixect order on merits would not substance in entertaining the because the Revision %d bi decided so‘far. In the facts and circn disposed of summarily With before the Collector shall grievance raised by the petiiio considered while hearing the H With the above observq disposed of. es of this case, this petition i dnectlon that the Rev1s10n med heanl at the earliest and th‘ er before this Court shall also be emsmn by the Collector [nous this pentmn stands dually Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha \ Judge v m c s e