w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.5282 of 2010 PETITIONERS/: 1. Ramji, S/o Late Nankusiya, Aged about (Non-applicants No.1 to 82 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil 11) Lormi 2. Jagdish, S/o Late Tekram, aged about 47 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi. 3. Dasharath, S/o Late Tekram, aged about 52 years Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi, 4. Ramashraya, S/o Tekram, aged about 58 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi 5. Bahadur S/o Tulsiram, aged about 60 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi 6. Dasharath @ Dhanushram, S/o Late Tekram, aged about 54 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi 7. Aajuram, S/o Late Nankusiya, aged about 70 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi 8. Gokul Singh, S/o Late Nankusiya, aged about 65 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi 9. Jhumuklal, S/o Alam Singh, aged about 45 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi 10. Ramswaroop, S/o Mukheram, aged about 56 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi 11. Lokendra, S/o Mukheram, aged about 58 years, Village Gadahidih, Tahsil Lormi, No.1 to 11 are Distt. Bilaspur. Versus 1. Vijay Kumar Mishra, S/o Late non- Gangasagar Mishra, Aged about 58 years, R/o Seepat Chowk, Sarkanda, Tah. & District Bilaspur (CG) Applicant RESPONDENTS/: (Applicant & applicantNo.12) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Non-applicantNo.12 {Writ petition underArticle227, Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.K. Singh, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Soma Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (21-9-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 26- 8-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No.A/02/114/2009. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other documents. 3. Definitely, the Board of Revenue is having supervisory jurisdiction under Section 8 ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, but it does not authorize the Board of Revenue in contravention of the provisions of the Code. If respondent No.1 herein was not in possession of bhumi swami right over the land then the remedy under Section 250 of the Code was available to him. Consequently, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is per se illegal and not sustainable under the law. 4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 26-8-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No.A/02/114/ 2009 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 5. Respondent No.1 herein is at liberty to avail remedy available to him under Section 250 ofthe Code. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge