<jlr>'5 ^> ^^.77^0 ^D^Svfi^ CA££<p '~mnt4'9K3^/ iecl/''^o^ (•9-3) jndseiig pu^sja pue j!sqei''ejed epedoqq3 /je6eu!^jj>i if!:n|6jis 96e|iiA 'o/y 'Aapued ueq>j8-] uuey ABUJO^V ^o j9MOd E6J9U93 :q6nojqi (•9-3) jndsejjg pu^sra pue jjsqei 'ejed epedoq43 /je6eu!^j|>| 'l^j6jjs sBejjiA 'o/^i 'Aepued ueLi>je~i ujey jo BJIAA jAaa e|99~i ^ ^^^^^\^^.^^ [t) SlN3aNOdS3^8 ^ .-/ sns^aA (•9-3) jndseiig 43M?siQ pue iistjei 'jniSjiS 96es|!A •o/^j !EV 'ie-i UBM^I aqe-i^oajiMiegaiey'^Lus D-T /|e~i!jeM5i 94e~l 'o/a Jeuun>| >|oqsv a^e"! ^o 9j!M ejeiun>|eLis "4LUS :'je-1 UBM^I 9 1 "o/G jAaa neAJBd 3-F^ /je~| ueMii 94e~| jo uos -ieujn>i Ljso^ues a-T^ 1e~! ueM^i e^e"! ^o uos-o>|ueqs 3"T /l e-1 ueAA^i 9^e-i jo uos pueq3d9aa a-T^ /l e-1 ueM^i a^e-i ^o uosje-i ^ULUV V-T.7 ssAi^e^ussajdey ' |e69-i : q6nojL|i (paia) |e-| nqeg p uos |e~lue^i •T ^M^ .^>J '^' "^^ ^Ya ^' ^' ^ (^^y^fi^. : S113NOriI13d OTOZ7^/-'ON ^^j NQIlIi.3d^LZliM r-WN ^ndS^ie lVH^V9SIliVHH3 JO iyn03 H9IH 3H1 N1 •c? :'^^j^/' .^'^,^, ] ITPETITIONUNDERART1CL£^2 CONSTITUTTnNYVFj^p^ ><-. >ETHE 1^»/ WS ^ -7^/ HIGH COURT OF CHH^mSGARH AT BILASPUR ~ir Sinale Bench: Hon'Me Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra*^^ «2 Writ P^itton (2271 No.709 ot 2010. Petftioners Respondents Vereus ttwari Lal and othere Leela Devi and another :'.;»;;i.i;l9 Shri Anand Pandey, fbr the petitioners. hkwie appears fbr the respondents. ^l^ltjjii:liiii|il|ljl,.., :iiiti;i|iiiliiiiiii;^;||B ;^^^i-ji5i lgt.i. Wrtt Petition underArticte 227 oftheConstitu<lonotlndlilN»iigeilB 'l^lilliWI ORALORDER (18.02^010) ^ ^^^ffi:^M9iff" Heard on admisston. (2) In the inskant wft p^on^ the chaUer^^^^h^ order passed by the Bpard of Revenye on 05J2^0^ j(^^^ and the order passed by the AddiUonal Collector on (Annexure-P/5). By these orders, the revenue authorities have*held that the order passed by the Tateildar on the pdiUonere' a^ :;;|^i,^H|^||,|it|||||||;;|.|| fited under Section 250 of the Chhat^arh U^ Reyenue Cwte.i^^Q s^^ on 04.02.2004 and 21.12.2004 are set a^de and the petitioiieiahaNwnii^ •^^^»ms not been able to make out a case for interference. Leamed couns^ for ^isiy:.. N"8fll the pefitioners submits that eariier an ex-parte orcler was passed<te^to@msag|y Tahsildar in their favour and the said order has been excGirted.sn (3) Having examined the dpcyments annexed with the this Court is of the opinion that there are disputed questi@j^"@(^a^«ii ^m^^^M^^KSK^^^^iB •k involved in thte writ p^ttion. The respondent HoA-1 Q!fss s3e^^i»toe»^^ ^llii-H.^.^^Ni^i.i.-'^^^^^^^^^^ ctaiming that she is in possession for test 30 years^^^^^^^^^^^m,^^^ M^Si^ ,f i f'^ °) '^~ ^ ^y sl!ll petittoners ctaim tttle on ttie basis of the sate deed dated 13.<^.4964« (Annexure-P/1). (4) It appears that approp|i€te remedy for^ t^ approach the jurisdkAionat civtt Court tw redressal^^^^^^^ -^ regarding their titte overthesubject lanct. (5) The Apex Courtjn|he ca$e of Celina Coelho Perelia spli^ ww| g||^ olhers vs. Ulhas Maljatoales<iwarlttoll»raiidotfieis.(MW|g^ 217. has refterated the scppe of Interference^inder Arttete:^ltiii||i.il|i^..11iii|lil|ii||!l Con^ttution of India. Retevant paragraphs 30,31 and 32 Krf the^ipiort« are extracted hereunder: . ^ ^^mMs^.s»ss' "30. in BathutmQi Raichand Oswa/ v. i^xmibaf /?. ^|»|^ (1975) 1 SCC B5Qffiis Coi^/t^ <5CC p. 865, pa^ ^^^^^^^^^^ T ... The High Court cannot m guse ofexwBi^^^ ^ll:i^:|il^i||||l^|'a^ •SMftih ^urfscficfion URder Artfcte 227 coovert KseV inte-WGewffi^ of appeaf wtien the feg^ufe has not-cwfeiVB^a»^^ right of appeal and made ISw decison of^ffie suborfSnate ceuft ortrilwnal final on facts." 31. in State v. Naypt Sandhu, (2003) 6 SC^ 641 :^)^ SCC (CnJ 1545this Coi^ e)<]oteffh|d ^^j^^ Cowt uncterArtrcte 227 thus: (SCC pp. 656-57, para 2^«( III "28. Thus the law is that >Vfete 227 ^fel^ Consfifarikm af InCUa gives the High Court (ftef^wep©|» ^llll superintendence over aff couits affd Ntobafe^ »|h ^^Mi^wytiw thmughout (fte territortes in relatkm to wMchw^y^ exercises juris<Sction. Thss jurisdiclion canm^jbev^ Hm efi or fettered by any Actof^e State i^ ftwjgajj^ The superwsory /wfecBcfion extencte <o tofli(^F^^ [#gi^ subordinate Nbunafe wHtiin the SmHs of ffieir a& wWS»^, and to seemg that they obey itie law. The fwwem^ uncterArtfete 227 are wrote and can be ysec^ (@ fliSe^* ^ii^^ the ends ofju^Sce.Theycantw ysec^ toffrieyfere »»a,, ^ ,.-...... . .. ,. - . . .^. . _,,^^^^^^^^ even wffifr an mte/locutofy order. Howewr (fte power ii|iiiiii;i Sil ;illi uncter Artfcfe 227 fe a dfecreffonaiy powerand^ is cSfficuft to attribute to an orcSer of the High Court,such^ a souice ofpower, when theH^h CourtiteeffetoesAi sn terms purpoft to exensse any such C^(avS(mw^yi»i^ power. ttJs se(fleof tew tfraf ffus power siipefmtendence, m^erArtKsle 227, mustbe exen^Sfflf iga. :';l;^^^l;i;l^.l:;;iil;H;;;;;?|;li;|l?:;;??t sparingly and onty to keep subortSnate couris ancf NI|J tribunals wVtiin the boun(^oftheirau1t nty^f^4Q«s^ correct mere errws. Furffier, where the statute^bQnsM^ ^^yi;::;iiiii;i;i;i;^i::;i::;;;:;i:^;" (he exercfse ofrBvfe^a/powersitwoyfaf/®qiyfif®v<^g ;.:;i||lli a»»B. m llt- excep^ons^ dFcumstances to warranf jnte^®r^i©|»i3. mder Afis^e 227 of ffie Cons^utson oflndiasince^he* power of wpenntendence was not mean^teiN drcumverrf statutofy law. ft fe settted tew (feaf ^eaaii^ jurisdiction under Afffcle 227 Goufaf rn^&e exe^ej^^^ 'QS the ctoak ofan appea/m dfegyfee'." 32. The aforessadtwo ctecfeftws and few Oitlwr (tecsskms^-w^ namety, CftanctevwRar Sfta Ratna Rao v. Asftate(i8«€»si|g| Gwam, (1986) 4 SCC 447, Stefe of Maharas^ra v.tM^G^«ii,, (2001) 1 SC^4 ;2(W^ SCC ^5^ 1^7am(Ran^ef^gft»wpNMg Raw Prakash, (2004) 3 SCC 682 came iobe consKfefscNb^fflwa^ thss Couit in Sharoshad Ahmad v. Tilak R^ Ba^ ^20@^®^|B, SCC 1 and this Coiift hekt:(T ah Raj case^SCC-pp.iQ^if^ para38) ~ ' ' -'--^^^^^^^^ "33. Though powersof a H®frCourt imctef .Artfcfes««|^ 226 and 227 QIB veiy wkte and exter^ve overaMM«^ courts and tfnwnals throughwt ttie territoiwswteff^ felationto whksh it exen^ses^OTS(|(G(fon^ si^jis^^ must be exercised within the HmHs oflaw. •The^powhf^iv^ is supeivisory in nature. The High Court ctoes not.aN-n^ as a court of appeal w a court of enw. ft can ^neither^*^ revfew nor reappreciate, nor reweyh the ewctenew %, upon wtuch determinaffon of a suborcSnate cswrt-or ^s^ m^rior tnbunal purpwts to be based w io corrects:«a^ enws of fact or even oflaw and <o substyferie Jte ovw»«*t 'fe;::'. \ "^^^.^^ ^' :%^1®1< ;. -^- / ii^{ '^ ctecfeftw for thatGfthe hsfwoF cfMrt er tribunal. ^The9^^:1 powers are /egiwed (p be exen^ed most and onty m^appropns^^caies in^onterto^^we^^w^, subonSnate courts and mferior trUMina^^vi mw «%^ limitsoflaw" ! ^ ^ i •-*wmftsKlwwf^' (6) Applying the law laid dmvn by the Hon'bte Supreme Court,gun^ Articte 227 ofthe Con^ftution <rf IrKtJia. this Court does Board <rf Revenue and the Additional Collector have commHteciwn^"^ly such iUegality or enw of jynsdfetion so as to warrant interfe|6ii^|Nan^8|»»w|| Articte 227 of the Constitution of India. The petftion undep^tete^pw|ifc ESs^ ^m of the Constftutton <?f India faite and is hereby clismissed wWa libertyito chril Court toT^reclre^saWtt^NNsfc gnevances. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge •.^-n;H;.^|l,|i|t^il|,||||||i)|l|^ ^^SS%S^f^