,§<^ ,-». Respondents !8sas<'dtfc>EJ!l55 ^^;^''';:^:'';; 'i:i&-:'!^H^s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BiLASPUR W.P.No.4588 of 1997 Petitioners 1. Saligram s/o Visheshwar aged i years 2. Maniram s/o Visheshwar aged 50 years 3. Labhoram s/o Visheshwar aged 48 years 4. Krishnachand s/o Visheshwar aged 45 years ail residents of Village Jarekela, P.CN No.37, Tahsil Ghaighoda, Dist.Raigarh. Vwsus 1. State of Madhya Pradesh through Secretary, Revenue Department, Vallabh Bhsiwan Bhopal. 2. The Collector, Raigarh, Distt.Raigarh, M.P.(NowC.G.) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Gharghoda, Dist.Ra^arh, M.P. (Now C.G.) 4. Smt.Suhano, widow of Laxman aged about 60 years 5. Babuial s/o Nege aged about 50 years 6. Mdhanlal s/o Nege aged 45 years 7. Phoolsingh sto Anjor Singh aged 40 years40years 8. Hartal s/o Ganjha aged 50 years 9. Khetro s/o Hardayat aged 30 years 10. Baiga s/o Hardayal aged 25 years residents of Village Jarekela, Tahsil Gharghoda. Dist. Raigarh (Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution of India) sc Mr.Ashish Surana, counsel for the petitionere. Mr.Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer tor respondents No.1 to 3/State. Mr.Sanjay S.Agrawal, counsel for respondents No.5 and 6. None present for other respondents. ® (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDBR(ORAU (9-8-2011) 1. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashment of initisrtion of revenue proceeding at the tnstance of Sub-Dwisional OfRcer, Gharghoda in Case No.95/1996-97 under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code"). <» 2. I have heard iearned counsel for the parties, perused the copy of ordersheet impugned and previous order dated 19.7.89 passed by the Sub Divisional Offlcer (Revenue), Gharghoda in Revsnue Case No.188;A- . 23/88-89. ,5sa,>Leamsc! counsel for the petitioners submits that after due inquiry under Section 170-B of the Code, ths Sub Divisionat Officer (Revsnue), Gharghoda has rejected the claim of the raspondents, but after lapse of eight years again the Sub Divisional OfRcer (Revenue), Gharghoda has initiated proceeding under Section 170-B ofthe Code and has applied for psrmission to revisw to the Collector, Raigarh and without application of mind, the Cotlector, Raigarh has pennttted to review relating to the order passed eight years back. Learned counsel further submits that it would be amount to comptete abuse of process and without appllcation of mind, any order especialty the order for permission to review is not sustainable undsr ttie law. >n the other hand, learned Panet Lawyer Torthe State/respondsnts No.1 to 3 opposes the petition and submits that the revenue authorities have not passed any order against the petitionere and permission to review has been granted and the petitioners are having ample opportunity to defend their case. - 5. From psrusal of the order impugned and previous copy of the order, it appears that after passing of such order, although after eight years on the ground mentioned in Section 170-B ofthe Code, the Sub Divisional Offlcer (Revenue), Gharghoda has applied for permission to review ite own order and after satisfaction, the Collector, Raigarh has passed the aforesaid order. Opportunity of hearing ofthe pet'rtioners has not been denied. S. In initiating proceeCHng and granting permission for review both tha revenue authorities have not committed any illegality warranting interference in exereise ofsupervisoryjurisdiction. -I 7. Consequently, the wrft pstition is liable to be dismissed and it is hsrsby dismissed. However, it shall be obligatory to open the revenue authorities to provide complete opportunity of hearing to the petttioners bsfore reviewing the eariier order dated 19.7.89 in accordance wth law. No order astocosts. - Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge ;|3s!lil gi