'»-:: ^v Resoondents .Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ. Writ Fetition No. 1007 of 2001 1. Kheer Sindhu, Son of Bailochan Sahu. aged about 55 years, 2. Indro, Sbn ofBailochan Sahu, aged about 45 years, 3. Chandro, Son of Bailochan Sahu, aged about 40 years, 4, Brindavan, Son of Bailochan Sahu, aged about 37 years All are R/o Vlllage - Atunda, Tahsil - Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund. Chhattisgarh. Vs. i . 1. Bairam, S/o Shri Devraj, aged about 50 years, R/o village - Banobhata, Tah- Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Ramnath, S/o Shri Devraj, aged about 40 years, R/o vili. Banobhata, Tah. Mahasamund Distriet Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Sub Dmsionaj Officer, Saraipali 4. • The Colleotor, Raipur 5. The Commissioner, Raipur(C.G.) Petitipn under Arttoies 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India, Shri Suni! Sahu, counsel for the petitioners. ORAl. ORDER (Passed on 26°' Aprst, 2007) Petitioners c!aim that they are the owners of the lands in Khasra Nos. 30-0.55, 31-0.08 and 36-0.146 having purehased the same from the respondents. (2) The SDO has taken suo motu proceedings under Section 170B of the Chhatti^arh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code'). After holding the enquiry he had passed an order reverting baokthe lands|in question to theirespondents. Aggrieved: by th° said order petitipners iisa <N 1!"!!-1 i;!-:'13: i filed an appeal before the Collector ivho vvas the Firet Appellate Authority then. The Appellate Authority had also reiected the appeal flled by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had fileda revision before Revisiona! Authority. The Rewsional Authority has rejected the revfeion filed by the petitioners for non-prosecufion. That is how the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition. (3) In my opinion, the petition so filed by the petltioners cannot be entertained for the reason that, since the Revisional Authority has passed an order rejecting the revision petltion for non-prosecution, the petitioners should have filed anapplioation for restoration ofthe said revision petition, But in the present case, the petitioners have rushed to this Cpurt without exeroising that option that was available to ttiem. (4) In that view of the rpatter without going Into the merits and demerits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitjoners, however; are permittecj to file an appropriate application before the Board of Revenue, since the post of Revisionai Authority is now abolished,- requestjing them to reoall the earlief order passed bytheRevisional Authority and pass an order on merits of the case. !f and when such application is filed by ffie petitioners before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue shall secure the record and considerthe application ofthe petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance wjth law. Ordered accordingiy. Sd/- ChiefJusttce ftii'i1