N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRITPETITION (227) No. '§$’%1 12009 / PETITIONER 1. Anshul, scn of Shri Santosh Kumar EaPoNbE/ov do.) Vaishnav, aged about O8 years, . being a minor through his father Shri Santosh Kumar Vais‘hnav /22 Santosh Kumar Vaishnav, son of Shri Banshidas Vaishnav, aged aboUt 36 years Both residents of Bipatpur, Ghikudia, Tehsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh VERSUS VRESPONDENTS /’1. State of Chhattisgarh,throughthe ResronrDEN'I N03 - Collector, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh igvlgmldgk AVPLMANT (2. Santram, age not known son of to Shri the Khorhahara, petitioners, r caste Kurmi, resident of village - Dewari, Tehsil .Pipariy’a, District r“ Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh Through the power of attorney holder Shri JageshwarKVaishnav, son of Pushp Kumar Vaishnav, resident of village Bipatpur, Ghikudia, Tehsil Pandariya, ’District ‘ Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE SUITABLE WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS I AC, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SB: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA WRIT PETITION (227} No. 3590 OF 2009 i PETITIONERS l i K11. Aditi and anotlmr i Vs. I ; RESPONDENTS VJ j State of Chhataggarh and another i WRIT PETITION (227) No. 3589 OF 2009 LPETITIONERS I I Ajay Vaishnav and another I Vs. 1 REspoNDENTs ! i State of Chhattisgarh and another? WRIT PETITION (227) No.3591 OF 2009 I PETITIONERS I I Anshul and another I Vs. i RESPONDENTS i I State of Chhattisgarh and another i WRIT PETITION (227’ No. 3593 OF 2009 J PETITIONERS I I Santosh Kumar Vaishnav 6o another I Vs. I REsPONDENTs I I State of Chhatn'sgaxh and another I I / WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF “THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA APPEARANCE: or Mr. Ashjsh Shrivastava and Mr. Devendla Patcl, counsel for the petih'oners. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyor for the state] / respondent no. 1 in all the petitions. Mr. Santosh Bharat and Mr. Keshav Dewangan, counsel for respondent no.2 in W.P(227) No.3590/ 2009, 3589/ 2009, 359112009 85 3593] 2009. NI ORDER (ORAL) R (29.03201 1) 1. Since the issue involved in W.P(227) No.3590, 3589, 3591 and 3593 of 2009 am one and the same, they are being deposed of by this common order. 2. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur on 09.6.2009 (Annexure P~ 1). Leained counsel for the peh'tioners would submit that the said order has been passed Without issuing notice to the petitioners or without giving any opportunity of hearing. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the revision was filed before the Board of Revenue on 08.06.2009 and it was posted for heating on admission on the same date and thereafter it was nxed for orders on 09.06.2009. The impugned final order disposing of the revision has been passed on the same day itself i.e., 09.06.2009 without issuing notice to the petitioners. 4. Proviso (m) to sub—section (1) of section 50 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959 (for short “Code of 1959”) provides that no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. 5. Admittedly, as is redected n‘om the impugned order, notices were not issued to the petitioners and the revision was allowed. 6. In View of the above, the impugned order is set aside only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as enshrined under proviso (in) to sub—section (1) of Section 5O of the Code of 1959. Without entering into the merits of the case, the matters are remitted back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the revision petition afresh after hearing all the parties to the revision. 7. The writ petitions, thus, stand allowed. Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra I ‘ Judge, Rao /