Si^-.i'SLZ 5'. IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT^ILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (C) N0.^^ OF 2004l??>ul/ PETITIONER .-r^- >'2^/ ••^L^"r ^ Aa RESPONDENTS Jhingudas S/o Balidas Panika, aged about 57 years, Kotwar, R/o Village-Kaitha, P.H. No. 4, Revenue Circle and Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS y 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raipur Distript Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Additional Collector Baloda Bazar District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sub-Divisional Officer Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Tahsildar Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) 6. Manmati Daughter of Nankidas, R/6 Village-Kaitha, P.H. No. 4, Revenue Circle and Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) HIGHCCXJRTOFCHHATTISGARHATBIl.ASPyR^ SINGL6 BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTra. A Petitioner Respondents WRIT P6TITION (C.l N0.248 OF 2007 Jhingudas versus State of Chhattsgarh and otha-s Present ; Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the pefifener. Mr. A.S.Kachhawaha, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondente No.1 to 5. None appeare for respondent No.8. ORDER (Passed on 14th Day of February, 2007) Leamed counset appearing tor the peUUoner submte that the Board of Revenue, in its order dated 15-12-2006 (P-1), has not appreciated ttie facts correctly while upholding the order dated 13-2- 2006 pa^ed by the Additional Colleetor, Batoda Bazar. 2. I have perused both (he ordws and taard l^imed counsel appearing for the petitioner and leamed counsd appearing fer the No.1 to 5. 3. On perusal, it appeare that Ihe fecte, appreciated by the Additional Collector thereafter approved by the Board of Revenue, are in accordance with the documents produced before the authwities. f5 There is no Inflrmlty in the appreciaUon of the facte as well as h decision-maklng process. This Court, in exercise of ils JurisdteUon under Artiele 227 ofthe Constifutlon of Indla, cannot sit as an appeltate authority. There is no error in dedsion-making process and the decision has been passed on the basis of concurrsnt flndings of facls recorded by the ^lditional Cottector and approved by the Board of Revenue. The impugned oider dated 15-12-2056 (P-1) is unexceptionabte and does not call for any interference. 4. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Q<q»al