a 0x \ é?! Petitionar M HEGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR Writ Petition No.44$8 of 1993 M— ._ Sewak Ram, son af‘ Miian Gend, re$ident of “village Gorr‘a, Tahsil & D§strict Raigarh (MP) (Now CG) Versas Tirithmati, widow of Pilwan. Bhagirathi, sen f Piln, c wa Jagdish, son of Pilwn. a Ni T gh rbheram, son of iiakram Aariya . AH residents of viilag Ragja. Tahsi ak, District Bilaur (MP) (Ncw CG) 5. tate of Madhya Prades! through the CoiicQr, Biiaspur (MP) (New CG) Divion, si 7. ub ivisicnai mcer Revenue), Tahsii Sakti’ DisttJanjgi! hapa. (Writ Peiition under Article 226 & 22? of the Contittion ina su‘r pf di) Aditya Tiwar counsei'for he petitioner. Mr.‘.lid Teka, Panei Lawyr for rspondents o.5 to 7lstate. Respcnde‘nfs x e i Sti sp S h et 6. C¢mmissienen vJabaipui abaipur (MP). S D G ( , Cm . .. (3’ Hon’bse Mr. T.P. shama, J. 5: ) 1 2-9-201) oi 6 Co ii e . By this‘=writ petition under Artie 22 & 227 of the nstituiion of indie the petitioner has chaiienged the iegaty & propriety of the order dated 24.2.98 passed by the Commissioner; Biiapsur Division, Biiaspur in Revenue Cas No.1/A-23/9?—98, affirming the order dated 16.797 passed by the Additional 2‘ a ‘ i Coiieotor. Korba in Revenue Appeai Case No.255/A—23/96—9K whereby ihe 1 . Additionai Coiiector has affirmed the order dated 21 .497 passed by the Sub ‘ Divisionai Qfiicer (Revenue), Sakti in Revenue, Case No.499iA23/953d whereby the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sakti has directed for restoration of possession 'to originai holders of the land Le. Piiwan Slo. Bhagau. £ J ML i, t . ~v no m e e N . ORDER ( 1 4- 2 . i have heard learned counsei for ihe parties, perused the arder impugned and other orders med on behaif of the petitioner. L s pa. order Impugned and copies of other orders, the .and wee ongmai hold .A y P lwan member of Scheduie Trme One deed was eAecuted m favour ef Milan, member of Scheduled Tnbe Le. fatner of the present petitioner m the year 1991. but as per report ef the revenue officers. 3rd pereon ire. Niriahay’ Ram ’Patei was m possession After due inquiry under Section 1m A and B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 competent authon‘y nae irected for return of posseeelo'i which was affirmed by the appeitate authority Le. Additionai Coliector and the Commtsstoner. Bliaspur eamed counsei for the petitioner submitsthat father of the present petitioner as purchased the property from original owner of the iand who was also a‘ member of Scheduled Tribe i.e. aboriginai tribe; therefore, no permission of the Collector was necessary for purchasing of the land-“by a member of aboriginal tribe from the member of aboriginai'tribe. The petitioner was in service and was not in a position to personally cultivate the iand, therefore, e has given the same on the lease to different person‘ althodgh he has not s proved the factum of lease or possession by adduoing any evidence. From perusal of the finding of the revenue authorities it appears that the present petitioner is not restdent of Village Ragja where the property rs Situated but he is restdent of Village Gorra he was in service and rie was not reSiding in vrliage Ragja. On thebasis ofaforesaid evrdence, therevenue authorities have passed the aforesaid prders. in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court is required to examine the iegality and propriety and whether the authoritieshave observed ruies and procedure prescribed .under the law and not required to examine as appeiiate forum. . i do not find any iliegaiity in the order impugned and orders passed by other authorities warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.‘ . Consequently, the writ petition is iiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/.. P‘ Sh§fma _’ Judge \ A b d . t h h r .