c^ o m THE HIGH CbUBT QF SVISetQVBS 9S _HriiaspDR ( •C.-G. ) 'iirsiT pETi'no:LSI- ^ L^. s'so. / vy- r /2907, PSTITIWE8 •^ .u?' ^WT/ ^^^ <My ^y <f /.^ V /f T:/ < \; RBSPONSES-TO'S ,' Lalnl Bai aged at&ut 60 year wldow of late La3uwa easte Gada Kotwar resldent of villay Baherad.i.h District •Tadjgir - Charapa (C.G.) 'VSEBQS 1; State o£Chhattisgaria Thsoa^is Cbllector JanJ glr-Chai^ia 2. Saipaach Gran Paadaayat Baheradlh Tabsll Sakti 01 stt .Jaaj glr- Charapa (C.G,). WSIT PStITION SNOER aRTIC&E 227 6F THE y CBNSTITBTION 0F IHBIA S&R ISSU'aNCS OF appayp'OTSTE wgrT» ORBER OR BECRECTION Ete. H!SH COURT OF CHHATnSCARK AT BSL/^PJR Writ Petition (s»No. SS4 of2007 . Petitioner : Lahi Bai Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another -'-I SB Hon't'te -Sh" Satish K, Agnjhot", J. Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Tnyari, counsel for the peUtionsr. Jain, Pans! Sa'.vyer for ths respondents/Siate. Ri4s. Sunits Jsin. Psns! !sv»*v^r*or t*u 1. ¥- .<" ORDER (Psssed OR this 20 day of Febpja"/, 2007) 3y itits ps^iion fiied undsr Artio!s 227 of ffT$ Constlty^on of !nd*3t ^Q petitioner has impugned the order dated 29 Novembar, 2006 (P/1), passed by the Board of Revenue, ChhatUsgarh, Bilaspur in Reviston No. R-83/A-5®2003-2004. 2. The indisputable iacts, in short, are that the petiUoner was working as Kofarar at viiiage Baheradih. Thereafter, the petitiorier got reroarried and shiftsd her residence from Bahsradih to Kalmidih. Thus, the pstitionsr wss removed from ths post of Kotwar by ths resoiuSon dated 19.4.1997, passed by the village panchayat. The Naib- Tahsildar, Jaijepur in Revenue Case No- 061A-SBItQae-Q7 after having examined the oral evidences adduced by the peBtioner and after having provided opportunity to cross-examine to both the parSes as weii as having perused ttie docunrenis, passed me order dated 23.3.1338 under The Kofavari Rules read with Section 230 of The M.P. Land Rsvsnus Cods, rsmoving the petitionsr from ths post of Kotwar, Gram Baheradih. •^ "^-.. 4. Bsing sgsrisvsd, ths pstife?ner Sisd an appsai bsfers fes Sub-Dhflsiona! OfRcer (Re'/enue), SakB !R Appsa! No. ?S/A-56/1^7- 98. Th.e Sub-Divisio"al OfRcer dismissed the appea!, confirn''ing the findings recorded by ttie Naib-Tahsildar and upholding the order passed by him. The Second ApDeat, being Case No. 185/A- 56/1998/99, was preferred before the AddiBonai Commissioner, Biiaspur, which was also rejected vide order daled 24.8.2002. Thereafter, the petfSoner fi!ed a revision before ths Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. The Board of Revenue afler having considered all the R'atsris! avaHabte on rscord c3'**s to ths conc'uson thst ths Goncurrent findinns racorded bv the Courts ba!ow wsrs in ecc<i"lance with law and there is no infirmity in appreciation of fects and in application of law also. The High Court in exercise of its jurtedtotion under Artjcie 227 of the Constitution <rf india has limited scope of supervision <rf the su&ordinate courte wiihin the bounds of ite jurisdiction. The High Court cannot sit as an appellate court under Atticle 227 of the ConslituUon of •ndia. This is riot to correct mere srror of facts or of !aw unless the following requirements are satisfied : (t) th®error is manffest and apparent on Ihe face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provislons of law. and (ii) a grave injusiice or gross faiiure or justice has occasioned ihereby. (See Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and oihers (2003) 6 3CC 875). Nothing as steted hereinabove to revoke supervisory JurisdicSon o'ttiis Court is avaHabte in this case. As a resutt, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishKAgnihotri Judge