PETITIONER @o é HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 4460 OF 2008 Shrimmji Swami Nagridas Temple, Through Mahant Govind Sharan Das, SawarakarlTrustee. Through : Aam Mukhtiyar Shyam Sunder Das, ‘Saurabh’ Guru Sarvarakar Mahant Govind Sharan Das, aged about 34 years, R/o Sarswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Ramchandra Swami Nagridas Temple. Raipur (CG). Versus Smt. Manju Krishnani, Wd/o Late Dayal Krishnani, Rio Bhoi Para, Purani Basti, Raipur (CG). Mritunjay Dubey, S/o Not in knowledge of the petitioner, R/o 159, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG). Ramnarayan, S/o Domar (Dead) Rambishai, S/o Domar (Dead) Smt. Reja, Wd/o Domar (Dead). SLNo.3 to 5 are Rlo Purani Basti, Raipur (CG). Rijhumai, S/o Jeumal Sindhi (Dead), R/o Bhoipara, Purani Basti, Raipur (CG). Sunder Nagar Grih Nirman Prathmik Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit. Raipur, through its President, Sunii Tiwari, Slo Chandraprakash Sharma (Dead). The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri SC. Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTSI 1 . 8. Present : (Passed on this 18 day of August, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order dated 7—11-2007 (Annexure-Pl1) passed by the Collector & Registrar, Pubiie Trust, Raipur. in revenue case No.01lB.-11 3(4)]2007—08. He further submits that the petitioner has raised an objection with regard to maintainabiiity of the appeai, but without hearing the case of the petitioner, LRER the Board of Ravenue passed the interim order granting status quo with ' regard to property in dispute contrary to the order dated 7-1 1-200? passed by the competent Court of Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that ends of justice wouid be sewed if the Board of Revenue is directed to consider the question raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainabiiity and on merit also as expeditiously as possible. 3) It is not necessary to issue notice to private respondents i.e. respondents No.1 to 7, as no order has been passed on merit, but only direction is issued to the Board of Revenue to consider and decide the matter expeditiously that may not be opposed by the other respondents. Thus, this petition is disposed of with a direction to consider and decide the pending appeai No.A/1 4/PT/B-1 13(4)/ §42l2007 (Smt. Manju Krishnani vs. Shri Mritunjay Dubey & Others) as expeditiously as possibie. However, it is made clear that if the respondents No.1 to 7 have any grievances they may tile an application for reviw of this order. 4) vConsequently, l.A.No.1 for grant of interim relief also stands disposed of. Gowri g e