\.^-^v-y^^-^'i-^\iv^' IN TKE' HIGH CO-JRT OF JUDICATURE, AT JABM^PUR (M.P) WRIT PETJTION N0. ) ^ ~£ <S OF S9$8 BETi-ffiEN Peeli Bai, ffj.cto.u)of Iiokaa®'!GQap(» 4-. 4&-. ResJ.dence or Village ehhanatuda, Tel-isil Sarangarh, District RaJ-garn (M.p) PETITIOI-IER AI® il» 3'ayaram, S/o Padamlal. Agar-Lya, ^ '*).. •V^i'/" <Ls!2» Bodhra-n, s/o Padamlal Agariya, K' '~V- . ' '' '3. Krishna Chand, s/o Neelambar Agariya ^f^-^ ^{^' K:l& ...^/ V^ fe^ Resiaence of above,1 to 3 at Village Chl-ianatuda, 'Tehs'il Sarangarh, ^Distrtct Raigarh (M.P) _ . ;_ ,^_ S.h-i-te. ciiVi'P' ^h-rsflt^h sec-i-e-k^>f 'ri've "" e'^yi'!'^>"v "vcu-biS <ihe.^-w Qkop^ ' RESPOITOENTS ^f^" ' ^ ' . ' .. ^., • — ."? ' '^ -.-•.•' 5. Cs"nf')^^^fy^^ ^ f3s(€^pi^5^ J?»^/5/e'7? i'3'it^^i^ ^'^ • . WRIT PET_I_'n:ON UNDER ARTICXiES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 03? INDIA , ' !i !!l'TI|l!::f]i)[! <1 vjw) '-yi^lri^, y-nl'd'is, fqrti'<-ty'< flFletl g,^..^..^...V^.5^..^. ^200 311^?TTlf^i gaHan^^ranra? ^••ciSSSS w sn^^rq^p (yiigq^) BTOTiRtifeTan^r 10.11.2005 Shfi Awadh Tripa'ttii petitioner. Shri V.R. Tiwari, counse) Shri Yashwont Sinah T]l No.4 and 5. ly this petitjon under India the petitioner has eor'rectness of -rtie or'der'l Commissioner, Bilaspur Oivisi^ &iviswn allowed'riie revision the transfer of iand in favoui That itie ssme dispute wcs 1+iersfors, •Aat couid not ha.ve Br'ief faets leadinq to pstitioner hsrein, Manbodh agricuiturai iand of viiiaqe C^ Seranggarh, Khcssra Nos.14, l^ hectares. Vide aale deed dal respondents and thereafter' respondents cnd they mere in ^ his note dated 31st October 1< wth Shri Sunii Sdhu, counsel for -fne for respondents No.l to 3. hckur, 0ov*. ^dvocal®for resoondenTs thl<l[ri41')lfWriT^"fs><l •(RilfSl't ^si^Hail^si Krticle 226/227 of the Constitution of (•'altenged -the tegaiity, propriety and dated 27-3-1998 passed by -rfie jn, whereby the Commissioner Biias&ur filed by the respondents and held -H-.at of respondents No.l to 3 is valid and [airsady decided i'n the year 1977-78, peen agitated ,39010 in the year1$95. ]iling of 1tiis writ petition are that the shd Chandro were the owners of 'tfie fanamuda, Pdtwari Haika No-42, Tehsij }, 16, 25, 26, 27/2, ad mecsurjng 2.125 Ifed 5-4-65 the land was soid to the ft was entered in tfte name of the |o5session. The Revenue Inspector vide 191 reported th®matter to the S.&.O.. ?J SP/FS/2005-20,000 .IS.^-i-tii.sSCitii \3CTi -qi<ii<?)«,u>-al'<i<is, f2|dwy'< *11*1C91 apTT^ sn^CTwR-iicb ?I2IT3I1^?Tdi*fi* (,u:'i'3*|Ht ^^^s^^ •'"tiitggs an^STiracp (^crfg^) ^200 Revsnue, Sarangsar'h that tfie matter pertains to •Ae transfer of agricuitural land belonging to| re9is+ersd the Revsnue Case 5.0.0. pcssed -rtie order f| 'ni<lfn<Ill *ll*inT^"fei^l •(Rl'^K ^9if^i3n6»T a ScheduSed Tfibe. On that the S.&.O. No.l4/A-23/94-95 ond issusd no+ics to Jairam. i-iowever, Jairam dpuld not fiie any rspty, therefor'a, the hereiri a9ain:st which Jairan^ Additionai Coiiector and the 3-97 dismissed the appea respondents pr^ferred a rei| &iviSion. The Commissioner, ftevenue, Sdiranggarh had 4 conciusion •!+iat The saie of |3f returning the land To the petil'ioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional Coilector vide order dated 23- of the respondents, against which 'isJon bsfore the Commissioner, Bllaspur' Biiaspur OiviSion heid that the 5.0.0., l.so reqistered a simitar ca.se. No,5/A- 23/76-77 a"d vide order ddted 22-6-77 the S-&-0- reached to •the isnd by Pse'i Bai wss bona-fide against which an appeai wcs prefe""s^d. Thereaftsr, the C.oilecto" in appessl sst aside the order of the 5.0.0.. The revision wais filed before the Commissionsr against +hs orjer of ths CQ!!sctor and ths Commissioner passed the order mat the o der passed by the S.u.O. dated 22-6-77 was valid. Ther'efore, asain Reve^iue authorities were not entitled to open the cuse and in the iast pafja of the order leamed Commissioner has he!d +hat the mctter has airjeady been cohcluded in the year 1977-78 up to -tti®Board of Revenus thsrsfore. the Revenue authorities wers SP/FS/2005-20,000 43 vivef •^iwm^, u>Til'(i<i<s, Rlril<(4y'< *i i*tc»i?SW SII^TOTR'fitb WITaiI^Triili* ^:;li: ?:.:--':^^^ fv Ssrv w 'SP/FS/2005-20^00 vl-;F7Q?'. ;<?;K; ^ ^7 3IT^9T iraq? (ijclfjd^) ^200 B^aTWiriSaaii^sT •3- *l<<fCT<i1i <ii<inTfft«'<l•(ISl'tdl'l ^sri^qaiiiaT not entitled to reopen trts |=aSe in rhe yesr 1995 ort ths pfinsiple of r'esjudicata.whe.n the matt^r was already concluded up to the Board of Revenue in which it waJf heid that ths transfsr in question was bonafide and vatid and saiiie was not chalisnsed by rhe petitioner' herein, thersfore, that or<(er cttained fina!i-?y, as such the S.&.O. Revenue was.not entitled ti|i 'm the year 1995. Therefore, I do not f oassed by the Commission^ reopen tiie case again on the aome fac+s :inci <my i!iega!ity and infirmity in the order ", Bilaspur bivlsion. The w"lt petition is, therefore, liabie to be dismi^sed and the same is dismissed. 1 Sd/. L.C. Bhadoo Judge