m THE HIGHmgoum OF CHHgyISGARH gr ggAspUR. WRIT pEnnoN No. $7563 OF 2001. n PE TI TIONER VERSUS Vxs’mt. Kamila Bai, n/o Sinanbiro, Caste Uraon,W/o. Ishwar, aged about £15 R/o Village Dhhengurjor, (Bataikela), I3hsil Bagicha District JashpurEQ3zG.). ,3 i x ! Smt. Fousi, widow of Rongo, aged about 80 yeara, k Caste Uraon, R/e Village Pakergoan, Tehil Paalgoan : District Jaspur,(C.G.). hana, S/o Kongo, age about 60 years, Caste Urao, a/o v11age Pakexgoan, Tehsil Paalgoau- District Jashpur,(C.G.). Sadhu S/o Bongo, aged about 5 yaars, 5 Caste Uraon, R/o Village Paergoan, Tahsil athalgean Disrict Jhpur,(C.G ~ Thurru, S/o Rongo, ag about 35 years Cast Uro, Ro lage Pakergoan Tehsil Pahalgoan Distrct ashpr,(C.. ar / a a g 3 r st m G 335 PONDENTS ‘Tihoo, So ongo, aed about O yeas, Cae Uraon. R/o Village eroa, Thsil Pathalgoanr L‘ Dis et Jashpur. (c. . ). Pakgn é c&ntd...2' ,"“w s th h D d n 1 th f‘ k P t asl). ed , e an / Vil , t‘ i JuG). /2/ Bhagat, S/o Rouge, aged about 28 years, Caste Uraon, R/o Village Pakergoan, Téhsil Pathalg6an District Jashpur, (c.G.). Mainu, S/a Range, aged about 45 years, Caste Uraon, R/o Village Pakergoan,rThhsil Pathalgaén District Jashpur,(c.e.)i Sunga, S/o Rongo, aged about‘wo years, Caste Uraan, R/e Village Pakergoan, Tehsil Pathalgoan i: District Jashpur,(C.G.). ‘ w Thuni, S/o Range, 7. 9. agad about 38 years, Caste Uraon, R/o Village [ Pakergoan, Tehsil Pathalgoan District Jashpur,(c.G.). 10. Balbhadra, S/o Ama @ Mahar Sai, aged about 25 years, Caste Manjhi, R/e Village Baiginjhariya, Ibhsil Lailun- ga, District Raigarh,(C.G.). Vidyadhar Behra. S/o Raghuram, aged about Caste Mahkul, R/e ;Village Pakergoan, Tehsil Pathalgoan District Jashpur,(c.e.). The eeditional Cellector. District Jaehpur,(C.G.). The Sub Divisienal officer. ,“ Pathalgean, District Jashpur,:i (c.e.). //f WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CCNSTITUTIcw OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTICN/CRDEB IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. cetd...3 n i é Shri Prateek Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' Anand KumaJ' Tiwan', Pancl Lawyer for respondegts 12 86 13. Heald both the cot: The petitioner has nsel‘ preferred th1s writ lgetition against the order dated 20th September 2001 passed by respondent No. 12, the Additional Collector, E ishict Jashpur, wheleby the learned Additional Collector allo ed the appeal of respondents 1 to 9, and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pathalgaon, passed in revenue case 0.63-A—23/96-97', decided on 12.62000 in which the leanled S.D O. rejected the application of respondents l to 9 tiled under Sectio 170-B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, saying that the provisions are not attractive. The Additional Colllect0r while allowing the appeal held that the mutation dated 23.4. 1997 is declared as ineffective, void and invalid and the revenue land bearing Khasra Nos. 382/ 1, 396/1 and 399/ 1, total aiea 1.288 hectares be recorded in the name of respondents 1 to 9. Against the above order of the Additional Collector, the petitioner was entitled to file revision before the Commissioner at the relevant time, now before the Board of Revenue, as the post of 5 Commissioner has been abolished. The Commissioner and the Revenue Board under Section Scare entitled to exercise the power as of a revenue Court, and they are entitled to satisfy themselves as to the legality and propriety of the order impugned and also regilate all the proceedings of any Revenue XI-Hc-22 ané‘m m W 51W maféa mW Hfz‘a wwwa‘ 1wmu % 51mm r 19.3.2004 XI—HC-22 3a warm, m, W é ,, mmwPa‘é?/w§:\t 200 ma k?mgw § mmmw w) . mmwawm a: mum 4 Efga OML In View of the clear-cut provision, there was an alternative $5 remedy available to the petitioner herein. Instead of ming this writ petition, the petitioner ought to have $ed a revision under section of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Therefoxe, {he 5O of petition is liable to be dismi ssed and accordingly it i§ dismissed. The leanled counsel r the petitioner subEits that question of limitan'on will arise th fore, an order be passed that this period be excluded h‘om the peliod of limitation. It is not appropriate r this Court to pass any order on this request. It is for the rev nue Court to decide whether in the circumstances, the petition r is entitled for the benefit of limitation for the period for which he as litigated before this oourt/ ., , ' X’W’ sdl- L.C-BHADOO g4 I ~ / Judge §oma/ Sunita r we ere} ‘