HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wtit Petition (C) No. 2977 3f 20W PETITIONERS 1. MP. Aluminum Industries, a a partnership firm through Shri Santosh, Govind, Prembai, son af g 8hr: Knparam‘ Sahu resident‘ of Baunathnara Ralpur Tehsal and District Ralpur (CG) (as written In the f tmpugned order) 2. Govrnd Sahu, sic. Shri Kriparam Sahu, aged about 52 years, .rlo. ’ Baijnathpara: RaipurV(CG) Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. Hiru Pachkod, son‘o'f Late Rajaram ‘ Pachkod, agedmaboutf 68 years... ‘ resident of Tikrapara; Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) Lateluram sen of Shn Sarha Sonkar aged about 8O years resident of Lakhe Nagar Rarpur Tehsll and District Raipur (CG) (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) (SB: Hon’bie Mr. T.P. Shanna,J. Present:— Mr.M.L.Saket, counsei for the petitioners. None present for the respondents, though served. ORAL ORDER (Passed __.T.__. on 4 August, 2010) 1. Heard. 2. I have perused the order dated 23.42010 (Annexure Pi1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, in Revenue Revision Case No,R.N;/_14¥RIB— 121 l90/201 0, copy of the other documents, order dated 23.72009 (Annexure P16) passed by the Additionai Tahsiidar, Raipur in Revenue CaseuNo. 680B/121-O8-09 and the order dated 22.9.2009 (Anexure PI?) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur. ) n wZ" 3. Originany, names of the present petitioners were mutated, thereafter on the basis of complaint, permission for review was sought by the Additionai Tahsiidar, Raipur which was refused by the sub Divisional Officer, Raipur. Order of the Sub Divisionai Officer was challenged before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. Vida order impugned, the Board of Revenue has arrived at a finding that the Sub Divisional Officer has committed illegality by not permitting to review to the Additional Taheildar, but instead of remanding the case, the Board of Revenue has quashed the order and directed for correction of the record. 4. While reviewing the order, the Board of Revenue was required to remand the case with permission for review of the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, but it was not competent to pass any other order, especially relating to canoeliation of mutation and mutation of legal representatives of Rajaram Pachkcd. While passing the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has committed illegality, therefore, the aforesaid order is not sustainable under the iaw. 5. Consequently, the petition is partly ailowed. Order impugned is partly modified and it is directed that the Additional Tahsildar,'Raipurwshall review his own order of mutation and pass the order afresh. No order as to costs. ; r» v 5w- T.P.Sharma ‘Jiudge BI-