‘Z>C’3 SINGLE NCH w.P. 227 No.: 1201 % IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER : 1) Ravi Prakash Pujari, S/o Late Shri B.L. NON-APPLICANT Pujari aged about 68 years, R/o, MG. Road, Raipur, District— Raipur (C.G.), through its power of attorney holder Shri o\/i. ,. Rajesh Prakash Pujari, S/o Late Shri B.L. Pujari, aged about 48 years, R/o of k “u.“ .' Mahatama Gandhi Road, Pujari Nivas, Raipur, District — Raipur (C.G,). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1) Sarju Bandha (Naya Talab) APPLICANTS] Samshan Ghat Vikas Samiti, NON-APPLICANTS Registration No. 5356, Through its President, Madhav Yadav, i Tikarapara, Raipur (C.G.) 2)/ Government of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 3) ’ General Public 4) CG. Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.) Through its President HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: N Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227 No. “ Aggearance; 41 Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (09.02201 l) The petitiGner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 30m November, 2010 (Annexure P—l) dismissing his revision which in turn was preferred to quash the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur in case No. B/121/2008-2009. ”J (2) The revenue proceeding was initiated on an application moved \ by the respondent No.1 under section 242 (5) of the Chhattisgarh rt_/ Land Revenue Code on 13/04/2009 (Annexure P-2). It appears when the said Revenue Otiicer called for a report from the Additional Tahsildar, the petitioner submitted his reply raising objections both legal and factual regarding the jurisdiction and maintainability of the proceeding and when the Tahsildar did not proceed to decide the‘ objection, the revision petition was preferred seeking quashment of V ithe entlre . proceedings. . L S 1 l PETITIONER : Ravi Prakash Pujari RESPONDENTS Versus Sarju Bandha (Naya Talab) Samshan Ghat Vikas Samiti (3) From the order sheet of the Sub Divisional Cfficer recorded on 8/04/2009, it would appear that the Sub Divisional Officer has only called for a report from the Additional Tahsildar and the petitioner has moved his objection before the said Additional Tahsildar and not before the Sub Divisional Officer. The matter is at preliminary stage. Since the petitioner is yet to file his reply before the Sub Divisional Officer, it Would be appropriate if the petitioner submits his reply before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) raising all objections both legal and factual including preliminary objections. If the objection regarding maintainability of the proceedings are raised the Sub Divisional Officer shall first consider the objection before proceeding to decide the matter on merits. (4) With this observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 9‘0