Petitiioner Non-appllcant No.1 Respondents App!lcants OFCHHArTiSGARH ATBILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 496 of 2010. Shant Kumar Jaisvral S/o. Late Shri Saiik Ram Jalswal, aged about 62 years, R/o. Viliage - Sarwani, Tahsii-Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Vs. 1. Savitri wire of Ramial Aqrawal £.. 3 3. Ramiai S/o. Kedamath Aurav»ai Soth rssidsnt of Kh3rsi3. Tahsll '—Khsrsia Disit. Raigarh (C.G.) Basant Kumar Jaiswal S/o. Late Shri Salik Ram .Jaiswal. Vijay Kusnar Jaiswa! S/o. Late Shri Salik Ram Jaiswal Ruoendra Kumar Jaiswai S/o Late Shri Saiik Ram Jaiswal, Ali three resident of v'liage - Sarwani, Tahsi! Kharsia Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Board or Revenue, Biiaspui Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) Commjssioner, Biiaspur DiviSion, BiEaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition underArttete 227 ofthe Constitution Qfjndia) t-resent; Shri M.K. Sinha. counsei for the Detitioner. None for the respondents. Sjnaie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dhirendra Mishra. J ORAL ORDER (22.06.2010) Th& short ai-iestion raised by the petrtioner in the instant Detition is whether the Board of Revenue was iustifisd in restrainina ths petitioner herein from alienatlng the suit land under Order 52 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code (herein atter 'The Code'). Learned counse! for the petitioner submits that Section 52 of the Code empowers the Revenue Authorities to stav the execution of the order passed by its subordinate and there is no power to Revenue Authorities avaiiabte under Section 52 of the Code to pass prohjbitory order restraining the parties from ailenating their property. ,,,<3S^^^. !»' ssr'"".Pt« /s^ tai,. x 3. b. From perusal of the impugne" order, It appears that the petltioner's aDDlication tor muiauon in tne revenue record has oeen reiected Bv tne Tahslidar and his appeal was aliowed by the Sub Divisional Ctfficer. The respondents No.1 & 2 fiied appeai before the Addlnona! Collector, Raigarh and the case was transferred to Commissioner, Bilaspur due to amendment in ths Land Revenue Code. The appeal was dismissad by the Commissioner hoiding the same as time barred. Thereafter, the respondents h.erein prsferred a rewsion before the Board ot Reyenue and the Board of Revenue by the im"ugned order has orohibited the Detitioner from aiienating his suit property, From bare reading of Section 52 of the Code, it js apparent that Section 52 confers upon the Revenue Authorities the power to stay executlon of tne order appeaied from or against, whiie exereising appellate or revisionai iurlsdiction, Section 52 does not confer anv Dower to the Revenue Authorities to pass any prohibitory order against the parties. In ttiat view of the matter, the order impugned, restrainlng the petitioner from aiienating his property, is iilegal as the same has been passed in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Board of Revenue. Accprdingiy, the petition is aitowed and the order impugned, retraining the Detiuoner trom aiienatina the suit DroDertv is set aside. Db"'e .^."•8wa ,judS( bini