^iiSs^^si^sS^-"'^^ ^-F/? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wr Petttion fCI No. 2804 <rf 2007 !S~- S-o-7 Petttioner Deepak Sharma Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others .-^- Post for order on t$" May, 2007 --sr ^^^ ^- ^ e^r^ SSffl '"s^" -1- •'<; HIGH 03URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASMJR Wrtt Petition /CT No. 2804 <rf 2007 Deepak Sharma S/o. Ramashantar Shanna Aged about - 3) years R/o. - Ward No. 21, Manendragarti, Distt.- Korea (C.G.) Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through ;- The Secretary, Department of PubHc Work. 2. Executwe Engineer Chhatttsgarh Kousing Board, Bflaspur Clrcte Bllaspur (C.G.} 3. Executive Engtneer Chhattisgarti Housing Board, Prognam Circle, Raigarh (C.G.) Wrtt isetttton under ArticSe 226 of Uie Constitution oflndja iingSe Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justfce SaSish K. Agnihotri. Present: Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Singh, Goyemment Advocate for the State/respondents. Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the Caveator. 1. 2. (Passed on...ff& DayofMay, 2S07) ~riie pstttioner, by ths petjtfon, chaitenges the tegality and wh'dfty of the Impugned order dated 12.1.2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Board of Revenue !n Revbton case No. R.N, ll/R/A-76/180/2006, whereby notic®dated 24.1.2006 and 28.1.2006, issued by the Addittona! Tahsiidar/Tahsiidar, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Diviston Bitepur and Raigarii respertlvely, for recover/ of money under Section 146 of the Chhattisgarti Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 1959') was held to be in accordance w'lth law. The facts wiSft regard to the cfajm of the petitloner against the rapondents- authorities are not the subject matter h thb petltion. It appeare that the petiSioner was granted contract for Sfte work of construction of 100 beds Hcstel for JCrida Parisar including water supply, sanftary frttlng and etectrification at '•<• -2- Pendra Road, Distt. Bltepur, and for the work of construction of 100 beds sports complex at Manendragarh, District- Korea. Some dispute arose betvreen the partles vvtth regard to payment /recovery of amount. 3. The petitioner vide tetter dated M.7.1997 (Annexure P-3) wrote 60 {he Deputy Housing Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board, Bilaspur regarding the action of the Executive Engineer, Bllaspur, in termhatmg the contract arbitrarHy and illega!!y and wfthhoMing al! payments was bad. The petitioner ftirther InfofTned the Deputy Housing Commteioner, Bilaspur that in case ths matter is not decided wlthin 69 days, he would proceed to flte cbirrs before Uie M.P. Arbltratlon Trlbunal, Bhopal for adjudication. TTiereafter, it is not clear from the pteadlngs asto whether claims were finalized or whether pettttoner has moved the Arbitrati'on Tribuna! for seKHng hs clairrB. 4. The petittoner was issued nottee dated 24.1,2006 (Annexure P-4) for payment of Rs, 5,51,636/- within a period of 15 days by the Addltional Tahsildar, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Bllaspur. TTiereafter, one more notfce was issued on 28.1.2006 for recovery of Rs. 10,65,139/- withtn a perfod of 15 days, failing which, the said amount was recoverabte under the provisions of 146 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 5. The petitloner challenged the said notices before ifte Board of Revenue on She ground that the notices were bsued without affordlng any opportunlty of hearing to the peWoner. Thus, notices were bad. 6. On perusal the pteadlngs and documents, it appears that the petitioner was ilven 15 days tlme to mate the payment, but he did not compSy with the order of the said notices and the petltloner abo did not make any submlssion before the Board of Revenue as is evident from the observatlon of the Board of Revenue In para 5 which reads as under:- "5. f^TW 29.09.2006 cf^ 31'1|clc;ct>'IIJt ^TW 1 T?q2 Ri 3^7^ [T gRT RiRad '?ra? ireia' terr Tpjr fSreci?t Hf?r -3- 7. cT^ ff^T cR^ i^ ft-T TTCETra' '^t tor "TT 'WOT i ^N Pi<ii<t"<ui t^ sn 15 f^ cCT Wiq ^TI?T 1TOT, pPTW 110 SRT Rfteld ?pa.R lRg?T ?i€t 27.10.06 ^ y^ui 'yT-^N' ^ 3[WK i-t ^ar 'mir i" The petitioner has slept over hts rights aiter 14 July, 1997 tiil notlces were issued. The petitioner has abo not taken any action to get his dues settled by the Arbitratlon Tribuna! as C!ause 29, which was incorporated later on vlde offfce order dated 6.8.1986 (Annexure P-6) provldes for that in case any dispute arises between the parties, contract on any questton relating to the meaning of speclflcation, drawlng and instructions or any teriTB, or condition, The dispute sha!) be referred to for the A'bitratksn under the Indlan Arbitration Act. (Act No. 10 to 40}. 8. It is beneficiul fo quote Section 146 of the Code,1959. "146. Notice of demand. - A Tahsiidor or Ncrib TahsiSdap mey cuuse a notice of demcnd to be served on any defau!ter before the issue of any proeess under section 147 for the recovery of an arrsar." The sectfon 146 of the Code, 1959 cleariy provid®ttiat the Tahsildar or Natb Tahsildar may cause a notice of demand on any defaulter before the issue of any process under sectfon 147 for the recovery of an arrear. 9. The Supreme Court, in the case of Susya DevRai Vs. Ram Chander Ral and stheiy (2M3}e^X^S7Sobserved as under:- "20. Authority in abundance s avaHabte for the propositlon that an error apparent on the face of ree;prd can be corrected by certiorari. TTie broad working rute for determining what Is a patent error or an error apparent on the face of the record was we!l set out in Satyanaisyan Laxmlnarayan Hegde v. Malllkarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale. B was held that the alteged error should be self-evident. An error which needs to be established by tengthy and compilcated argumente or an error in a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where ttiere may conceivably be two opinions cannot be cailed a patent error. In a writ of certtorari the High Court may quash the proceedings of the tribunai, authority or court but may not substitute Its own flndings or directions in lieu of the one given in the proceedings forming the subject matter of certiorari." "38............(3) Certlorari, under Articte 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errore rf jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jursdlction- by assumlng jurisdiction where there exbts none, or (li) in excess of its jurisdlction-by overstepplng or crossing the llmits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of !aw or the ru!es of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natura! justice where there is no procedure specifled, and tftereby occasioning faiiure ofjustice," (45 Superwsory jurlsdidton under Artlcte 227 of the ConsSSution Is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts wlthin the bounds of their Jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction whlch tt does not have or has faiied to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jursdlctton though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by !aw and fallure of justice or grave injustlce has occastoned thereby, the High Court may step In to exercise its supervisoryjurBdtttion...........". 10. Ttie Impugned order does not suffer from any procedural error, perversity, irregularfty or fllegality. The claim of the respondents-authorities as per agreement is recoverable under provision of Section 99 of the C.G. Griha Nlrman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972. 11. It is wel! settled principte of !aw that under ArUcle 226/227 of the ConstiSutton of India, thls Court has jurlsdictton of judicial review of the order pa^ed by the Court betow, In the event, there s manifest and apparent error on the face of She proceedings based on the clear Ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of !aw or there is grave failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Rirther, this Court can also entertain the petttion in its supervisory jurtsdiction If there is perversHy, irregularity or lltegaitty in the process of decision, not in the declslon tiseif. 12. Appiylng tha above settted principtes of law to the fads of the present case, it does not warrant an Interference with the impugned order passed by the Court 13. Thus, this petition i's dismissed, No order as to costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Stfbhash C-P-^'~P-7=(.S-- ^ 1°-^- 'E THE HON'BLE HIGhl COURT QF CHhlATTISSAghl AT BILASPUB :[£.©J W.g.l:l;:F>Ef:l:f:tO:IM f£)t^©. 2-8(2-/2BB7 PEHBQMEgS 1. ^•-^ f3 ^^:\i.P^, ^.^-•\ ^ ^,.-— Ramchanelra Wasnife, a@e3 about 56 years, son of Shivajj Wasnifc, Sanjay Kymar Wasnile, aged about 43 years, soh of Shri Shivaji Wasnik ^.-^ ^^ ^^^^ ..""' dre resident bf village R.H. No. 87, R.I.Cirele Mahasamund Tahsil and District Mahasamunel (C©) VEBSUS _RES :NTS -5^^-'-^) ^. 1. Bahur Sihghson of MdnQelhi Kenwat, President Nishad Samaj, resielent bf village ShQdari, P.H.N. 87, R.I.Cirele Mahaseimund, Tahsil and Distriet Mahdsamund (C.G.) 2.^. The TQhsildar, Mahasamund, Eistt. Mahasamyhd (£.©.) 3.<. Sub Divjsional Officer (Rev.) Mahasamund, Distt. Matidsahnund (C.G.) The Colleetor, Eiistriet Mahasamyrid (C.G.) The Chhattisgarh Beiard of Revenue, Bench Bilaspur, fhrbugh - its Chairman. 4. 5. s ,0-'