[g Hi€§H C’CBUiiT GF S'rii‘iiiTTiSGARH A? Bi$§PIJR Wrii 9etition {C} NG.139 6f 2G§8 Peiiiioners 1. Ramnarayan, aged 37 yrs Non—applicahts Reopnarayan, aged 35 yrs Manoj Kumar aged 33 yrs Ali : Sfo Shri Arjun Ram Jaiswai rio: Gram-Pratapgur Tah—Pratappur, Uistt—Surguja CG Vemus Respandents 1. Bageshwari Prasad Paikara Sio Shri AppHcants ‘ Purushettam Prasad Paikra 2. Chaman Prasad Paikam Sis Shri Purus‘nettam Prasad Paikra Eai‘h rie : Gram : Bhena‘ari; Tah-r Ragpur Distt—Surguja CG 3. T‘ne Siate of Chha‘rtisgarh Through: The Caiiector, Surguj'a, DisttnSurguJia CG 4. The Eoard of Revenue Through: The Secretary, Beard of Reyenue Eiiaspur CC; (Writ Petiiian under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India) MLAnurag Eayai Shfivastava, counsei for the petitioners. Mr‘DNPrajapati, couneei fm respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Sumit Jhanwar, Panei Lawyer for respendeni No.3;‘Stete. (SE: Hon'bie Mr. TR Shanna, J1} ORBER (22-1: 1—201. 1;) 1. By this writ pehtion under Ariicie 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioners ha‘v'e chaiienged the iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 15.11.20G7 passed by the Board of Revenue, Biiaspur, in Revision Revenue Case NoRN t6iRlA—23/35/2007', whereby the Board of Revenue has quashed its previous order dated 23.2.2065 in Revenue \evision Case No.2Q8/‘A-23I2GG3—04 on the basis of order dated 26.12.2906 passed by the Cotiector, Surguja, in Revenue Appeat Case No.43iA-23i33-G4 and restored the order dated 21 5.20% passed by the r 51" \ ’1 x v i \ r \l n z/é -2, CoiEectar, Surguja én Revenue Appeai Case Nc.43fA-23i03-94, which has baen quashed 'ay the Eoard 0f Revenue vide Omar (fated 235.2(365, i have heard ieamed cuuneei fer the pamee, perused ihe order impugned and aii the orders passed by the revenue author§iies. Learned ceunsei fer rhe geritioners submits that white reversing the order dated 2§.12.2$GS passed by the Coitecter, Surguja when the ease was remanded t9 it by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 23.2.2005t e Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the crder dated 23.5.2095 passed by itself and restoring the erder dated 21 .62'304 quashed by itseif and committed itiegatity. 4. Gn the other hand, teamed counset fer respondents No.1 and 2 fermeiiy pa w‘. eppeses the petttten. 5. Vide Order dated 216.2094 the Cottector, Surguja has assessed the market vaiue of the tend which has been quashed by the Eoard of Revenue vide erder dated 23.2.2d05 in Revenue Revisien Case Ne.2§8ih—23/2t303-04 and ease was remitted to the Coiiector, Surguja. Para 6 of the order dated 23.22395 reads as under:— “wasmwdaeethssamd Hades? stash at Writ e“ 4a /st~23/2eoe—Eee4 It W. . attest mat steeds sweeteeatettsezfmzt‘meea. wettessaeiwmat W‘Fmw‘tre‘é‘ deem hattemmmeveeheshrésihdmdets $m§m§,wmetqmmwgas degestrfhwthetwrthmmigsttmtmftw esetehwthmtmatsr’. On the basis cf remand order the Coitecter, Surguja has again recensidered and passed the order dated 26.12.20G6. Enfarceabte hart 0t the order of the Coiiector, Surguja reads as under:— it h. ?3 “mmadtamevea We? WWW@WWW§% awee‘eteaemehaaiseweet’meew i 9.20 We starts 0.081 ti Eat stat—r eye W 29m. Width oofatsegatetm)mmdtwwaaw$msdt Wedm "treat Wwrmmwwmwm ref/ff? aithmaéeadesfm‘ardrWW—mee r M? wmwmm afé‘f W a‘r m ff W@%f§ama%i§¥maffm$%am§ 6. Order dated 26.12.2396 was again chaiienged by respondents Nos? and 2 befsre the Board of Revenue and Vide crder impugned the Board 0f Revenue has passed the foibwing order:- WE? $j§§$¥di Hen e‘m Wai‘ Ex“? W $Wwemnmmm§am§eiém$ 232.26% nan mew mm "em mar 3mm mm: 25.12.2905 WE ae‘r‘ m a? W iim? am mm mm W ai—lrm nines 216.2004 faj%r ma e?:%‘ 1% awn—cm ere? mar é: We??? e-rwr We may . Admittediy, t'ne crder dated 21.6.2SO4 passed by the Caiiec‘tor, Sgrguja has aiready been quashed by the Soard of Revenue vide erder daied 23.2.2605, but while passing the order impugned ihe Board 0f Revenue has quashed its awn Order dated 23.2.2305 and has restored the order deied 21.6.2904 passed by ihe Ceiieciar, Surguja, which has been quashed by the Board 0f Revenue vide order dated 232.20%. . While exercising the revisionai jurisdiction the Board of Revenue was not ~ HEW i”. $3 a“ competent to quash its awn order and restore the order passed by the Coiiector, which has aiready been quashed by it and by passing such order the Board of Revenue has committed jurisdictionai error and committed grave iiiegaiity. Such order is not sustainahie under the iaw. . Consequentiy, the writ petition deserves to be aiiowed and it is hereby aiioWed and order dated’io‘t t .260? passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Revenue Case NoRN 16/RIA-23i35/2097 is hereby quashed. Case is remitted to the Eoard of Revenue, Biiaspur for passing the order afresh in accordance with iaw after providing compiete opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties are directed to remain present before the Board of Revenue, Biiaspur on 24.1.2d12. No order as to costs. Sd/— T.P Shanna Judge \i‘ 75:, . t \x dr'f’