^i^ffig-s">*fr. ^•t!:. -: <2 ^ ^v^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.6.1 W.P. fCl N0. !l'oi-l /2007 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ^ {.^f^ ^^ ££^(^GS ,*' ^0^8^ ' Kumari Nirusha Agrawal D/o. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Aged about 24 years Resident of Chopada-para, Ambikapur,Dist.Sarguja (C.G.) Through : Constituted Lawful Attorney Shri Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, Son of Late Tarachand Agrawal, aged about 54 years, resident of Chopada-para, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Sarguja, District Sarguja (C.G.) Additional Collector District -Sarguja (C.G.) Shri Taman Singh Sonwani Additional Collector District -Sarguja (C.G.) VA HI6H CQJKT OF CTlHATnSfiARH AT BB^SPUR Writ Petition tO hto. 1104 of Z007 Petitioner Kumari Nirudia Agrawal Versus Respondents State of Chhatl-is9arh dnd others Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agniholri. Present; Mr. fteghavendra Prodhcn, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Utkardi Verma, Deputy fiovemnient Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Manoj Panmjpe, Advocate for the Cdveator. OR b E R (Passed on 27th Day of February, 2007) The followhi9 order of the Court was paissed by Satish K. Agnihotri. J. 1. By tiiis petition, the petitioner seeks for qua^iing of the entire proceedings along with the order dated 8-2-2007 (Annexure P/l). 2. The facts in nutshell are •that one AAr. Taman Smgh Sonwani, S-- Additional Collector, Sarguja exercising of his powwr under Section 44 of the Chhattisgarh Lond Revenue Code, 1959 (for short- "1he Code"), while hearmg the revision under Section 50 of the Gode, dismissed the preliminary objection of the petitioner that the Court' of the Additional Cotlector, Sa^uja does not have jurisdiction to decide the revision filed under Section 50 of the Code, as the same has not been conferred on him. \^ gss; 1 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner aibmits that the Additional Coltector, even if, it is presumed that he has jurisdiction ought to have decided the preliminary objection of the jurisdiction of the Court' before proceeding for finat hearmg ond diqiosat of the case. Learned counsel cppearing for •the petitioner hos made certain o'ther alle9ations -that the order dated 26/27/12/2006 whereunder, Mr. Taman Singh Sonwani, Additionat Coflector, Sarguja was conferred the power under Section 44 of •the Code was obtamed by nwnipukition of •the document. subsequently vide order dated 26/27/12/2006 (Annexure A-l), is not relevant for the purpose of consideration of -this case. 5. On reading of the documents, there is no indication of any mcinipulatton, however, without expressin9 wiy opinion on the contention of the leamed counsel. It is found that Mr. Taman Singh Sonwoni, Additional Collector, Sarguja vide order dated 26/27/12/2006 (Annexure A-l) has been conferred with the power to decide revision under Section 44 of the Code. 6. The second contention of •the petitioner is to decide prelimmary objection before hearing -the matt-er on merits, seems to be justified. 7. It is well sett'led that if a parly raises objection about jurisdiction, the Court/Tribunal without decidmg the preliminary objection wi1h regard to jurisdiction of fhe Court/Tribunal, diould not proceed with the finat hearing for disposal of the matter. 8. The order dated 8-2-2007 (Annexur®P/l) rejecting the objection of the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the ^dditional Coltector is accordingly quashed and the petition is attowed to the above extent. 9. The respondent No. 5 is accordingly d'lrected to decide the preliminary objection of the petitioner first before proceeding for finat hearing and disposal of the pending revision before him. Con^quently, M.(W.)P. No. 713/2007, an tipplication for grant of interim relief stands disposed of. ;^wsh •!^£, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge