IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227)No. ^%S5i /2009 Slogie PETITIONER ^Chandraprakash S/o Chhedilal Caste Satnami, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Kunwapali, Tahsil and Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS ^m ^ RESPONDENTS /, -^ ..^/ ^.-w/' ^' ^y ' ^''^'' 1. The Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur through Secretary, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 2. The Additional Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 3. Santosh Kumar Rathore, Occupation Panch, Gram Panchayat Gataura, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District ' Bilaspur C.G. 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 5. Tahsildar Bilha, Tahsil Office Bilha, District Bilaspur C.G. 6. Kunjudas S/o Shri Chamrudas Manikpuri, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Kunwapali, Tahsil and Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ~=T €v^ XI-HG—78 oH ^TI^T ^T'f^iN' ?[8?T 3?T^T s^^i^ *iWWl 5h*1[c|» '3^£T^NKn^, 8)ti1<H<i<o, f«ldiylj,< ^ ^'.C^^o'' &%S2-/C>]3 "^200 ^TT^?T T^7 ( ^^<sl<i^) ¥^W^fi?l^T^T SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICB ll.K.AGARWAL prefe^red bofhlfhe 3-8-2009 Shri Rakesh Pandey, Heard on admission. Instant petition is 10-2008 passed in Rc 56/347/2006 by the whereby fhe revision on the ground that the TehsUdar as well as him an opportunity of natiiral justice and, theif allowed the i^vision and to fhe Tehsildar with a hearing both fhe partles in| direction that during temporary Kotwar i.e. will work as Temporaiy Shri Rakesh Pandeyj who was not a party befoj any proceeding, would the Board of Revenue that cyis<<f<n41i '^m^if ^* ft^t <P»1^K i?T 3tRm 3T?^?T |Advocate, for the petitioner. di^cted against the order dated 13- ^venue Case No. R.N./02/R-A- ^oard of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, by one Kunjudas was aUowed |orders have been passed by fhe appellate courts wifhout giving h^aring in violation of pnnciple of rlefore, fhe Board of Revenue has matter has been remanded back dBrection to decide fhe matter after accordance wifh law wifh a further of the proceedings, the earUer before fhe Board af Revenue ttie pen^ency apfllicant Koltwar. leamed counsel for flie petitioner, he the Board of Revenue or even ia si|ibmit fhat fhe direction passed by fhe earlier temporaxy Kotwar wiU ^ '£sa:£s^-HG—78 3?T^T ^T fqiic?) ??^T ^TI^T^lNT ^ ^Wdl 5b*ii<t» '3~5sr ^ll^lld^, ^ti1<ri^i<o, f®i<ni^^< lO^.(-L-^-7j^o^<2>5^05 "^ 200 ^?r 'tra^ (<ic<^<s<<^) '^HW^ft^^T^I work as such till decisio^i deserves to be set aside. I have gone carefuUyl Leamed Board of Rt the matter for decision petitioner cannot be said order passed against fhe petitioner also goes. Shri Pandey faUedl jurisdictional error comm^ fhe impugned order leacj petitioner so as to invok^ Court under Article 227 The petition fails and| ^i^fd41^ 'w^rf ^* fe^ iPn^K i7 ^Tf^pqr STT^T by fhe proceedings is Ulegal and |through the record offhe case. svenue has rightty remanded back a|Trcsh in accordance wifh law. The to be a person ag^rieved. Once the |earlier temporary Kotwar goes, the to point out any Ulegality or m^tted by fhe trial Court in passing |ling to manifest injustice to the extraordinaiy jurisdiction of this of|the Constitution oflndia. 1 is dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge -t-