^-© aaafi S. BEM ^S-i^ ^' S-%BS?^^ ^11%^^.^ ^-^ 'iiUI IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2 '2-1> /2007 B PETITIONER ^& ---^"""'fp^' ^^^^ RESPONDENTS s^ Gulpat Rai aged about 65 years, S/o Laftaru R/o Mufcampur, Gram Panchayat Hasod, Tahsil Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) <*; VERSUS ^: The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Pancftayat and Rural Departraent, D.K. S Bhawa-n , Raipur .^- •'.':•» )^ \ ( ^$> 2^ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), J%/^. <% •\ r-^ •s'' . t^, ^ s.i.^451 Sakti Distt. Janjgir Champa 3'; Narsingh Sinha aged about 31 years, S/o Nandram Sinha, R/o Village Hasod Tahsil JaJjaJpur Distt- Janjgir Champa /t'. The Collector, Janjgir Champa ,5. Dicectac, Paachayat, D.K.S Bhawan Raipur ^v» ^^. 'cc I! '<" WRJT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO'Ei OF INBI& &.! sg HE6HCOUftTOFCHHATFIS6ARMATeiLASPUR W.P.(clNo.Z25of20a7 Petitioner Versus Itespondents Su^atRai The S-ta-te of Chhortti^urh A trthers "^ Sirgto Bench: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agrthutrt. Wr. Parog Kotetha, Advocate for ihe Petitfoner. MF. Suryakoht Vermu, Panet kn»yer for the respondwits No. 1, 2, 4 ond 5/SteEte. Mr, Vmay Pondey, Advocate for the Cnveator/respondent No. 3. iC OROEft (Passed<»n'tliisl3*d<yofFebryary.2007) 1. Learned counsef nppee^g for ^ •that dgamst •rtie orderdat^ 13.9.200te (AnnexureP/8), possedby the Ad3itional Coltector, JonJgir-Champa, oppeal is not mointainable to -the Director under Rule 3 of -rtie Madhyoi Prodesh Pnrtchnyats (A(^w<*l cnd Rwision) Rutes, 1995 (hereinafter referred -h> as the feiles. 1995') '2. The re^iondent No. 3 has preferred Ihe r^ision imder Rule 5 of •the Rutes, 1995. Proviso to -the said Rufe 5 clearly provktes thot no revision is ma'in'tainable if cn order is oppealable under the Act. In view of •ttiot, i* dppears,theDiFec1orhflStd<enthec8(^i^ceof+hematterun^ 5 of 1he Rutes, 1995, which according to the petitioner, te not maintamable. -i^.^cs&.v^f.SfSSlWWSf .'' 3. Be that os it may. -the order passed m revision is set oside. The Director, Panchoyat may consider -the case if an oppeol under Rule 3 of the Rules 1995 is maintairutble and pass appropria-te order, m accordence with bw. 4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ^- <>..