HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 29 1 1 /2006 NSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:— Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 1 although notice Served. None for the respondent No. 2. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 02/08/2010) Heard. 2. Order impugned dated 12/ 1/06 passed by Board of Revenue» in revision case No. 28/A—5/05—06 perused, whereby Board of > Revenue has revised the order passed by Collecto’r, Mahasamund 4 and has revised the order without providing an opportunity to the opposed party. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner are heard. 4. Order impugned perused. Order impugned reveals that Board of Revenue has revised the order dated 25/10/05 passed by Collector, Mahasamund in case No. 7/A-5/O4—05 but before reversing order of the Collector, Board of Revenue has not given any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner who has‘il party l l i i i O PETITIONER Devnath, S/o Shri Atmaram, Aged about 60 years, R/o Village Koliyaridih, Tehsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESP0N%ENTS 1. Sitaram, S/o Dharmu Aged about 65 years, ‘TehSil Basna, Diétt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2. Board of Revenue, Through—Presiding Offlcer, Bilaspur, C.G. x ‘WRI'fi, PETITION UNDER ARTICLE L 226/227‘ OF THE before the Collector in his favour. Appeal was allowed by the Collector in accordance with Section 50 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short ‘the Code’). Board of Revenue is competent to revise the order passed by Collector but in case of any variation and reversion of the order sought to be revised the Board of Revenue was required to provide an opportunity of hearing to opposite party in accordance with the Proviso -3 of Sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of the Code which reads as follows:- “(iii)—n0 order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard.” Admittedly, Board of Revenue has committed an illegality while reversing the order in revision Without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, order impugned is not sustainable under the law. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set—aside. Case is remanded back to the Board of Revenue for providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass the order afresh. Parties are directed to present before the Board of Revenue on 13/9/ 10. No order as to costs. Sdl- l T.P. Sharma " Judge 4V "