"^ <?!Uftl P RFNCN IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR W.P.ffilNO. S^\^- /201Q PETITIONER flPFLzcft^r^. ^7)^4"10 RESPONDENTS t)^f-fiffi^'ITS K-)^'^ /: Smt. Rekha Agrawal W/o Shri Bimal Agrawal, aged about 50 years, R/o Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 4] StateofChhattisgaih,Through:Collector, Raipur (CG) /3] /4] <•• ^o-- s^ tO^ A®° ?^ ^^ >.A?/'' ^v-%^ '. &3 ^^•li" w^-^' / /' & •-7 / Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Sub Divisional OfBcer, Raipur (C.G.) Nayab Tahsildar, Raipur (C.G.) 5] Pratap Rai Poptani S/o Govind Ram Poptaai, R/o Mangdapara, near Gurunaaak Chowk, Raipur (CG) 6] Radha Swami Satsang Vyas, Through: Secretary Radha Swami Satsang Yyas, AnandNagarRaipur (CG) WR1T PETITION UNDERARTIGLE 236/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION QFINDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAIUH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P.(227) No. 5717/2010 Rekha Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekatn, Panel Lawyer, for the resps. No. 1 to 4. Shri Varunendra Mishra, Advocate, for the respondent No. 5. Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate, for the respondent No. 6. ORAL ORDER (29-3-2011) 1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 25-6-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Case No. RN/14/R/A-6/62/2010 is questioned by way of instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed an application before the Tehsildar for correction of revenue map. Matter was referred by the Tehsildar to Collector throygh S.D.O. The Collector directed the Naib Tehsildar for submission of his report. The Naib Tehsildar submitted his report on 25-4-2009 to the Collector. On 14-5-2009, the Collector returned the matter to the S.D.0. with a direction to send clear proposal. It is the order which was assailed by the respondent No. 5 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide its order dated 13- 1-2010 allowed the revision and the Board of Revenue vide impugned order dismissed the revision preferred by the petitloner. 3. At this juncture, leamed counsel for both the parties submit that the order impugned as well as the order r.u, f- passed by the Commissioner may be set aside With a direction to the Collector to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties and having perused the order impugned, it appears, challenge was to the direction ofthe Collector for submitting clear report and there was no scope of interference by the Commissioner in the above direction. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the order impughed as well as the order passed by the ComrnissiQner is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Colleetor to decide the matter expeditiously after getting report as directed by him vide his order dated 14-5-2009 afteraffordingopportuhityOf hearing to all the parties. Since the matter is pending since long, Collector shall decide the matter as early as possible preferably witliUT a period of 9 months from fhe date of receipt of a eopy of thiserder. : ,: ' ., ; ; ::-' :,.':'.;,.,':'.:' 1, Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge !;;s;;:NE;ia .KifcM uvy