C^ Ler^ IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR W.P. IC\ N0.^^/2010 PBTSTSOtOSSts .v^&^ 4%%^ .y ^^.\<3y f~> .^•'.A ,^-' ^?-" ^- <^y RESPONDENTS: AshofcArora S/0 Shri Amamath Arora Aged about 35 years R/o Dhimrapur Chowk Raigarh Dist-Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS ^ (l)State ofChhattisgarh Through Secretary , Department ofRevenue Mantrala-ya ,D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur Dist- Raipur fC.G.) / (2) Singhal Enterprises Private Limited Through its manager Girindra Kumar Mishra R/o VUlage Taraimal Tahsil Tamnar Dist Raigarh (C.G.) /(3) Commissioner, Bilaspur Diifision Dist -Bilaspur (C.O.) y(4) Additional Collector, Raigarh DistRcdgarh (C.G.) wsaT^^?smoHWA2awa27 or'rss CQtMsnTOTroirorBIBIA mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'bleShriPrashantKumarMishra Writ PetitionfQ No. 5563/2010 PETITIONER : Ashok Arora Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Oihattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri Atul Pandey, counsel forthe petitioner. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, PL for the State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri SourabhSharma, counsel for respondentNo.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (10.02.2011) Matter is heard ftnally with the consent of leamed counsel for the parties. (2) Shri Pandey leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order (Aanexure P-1) has been passed by the Revisioaal Authority of Secretary, Department of Revenue, Govemment of C.G. without giving any opportunity ofhearing, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set asideon fhisground alone. ' . (3) Leamed counsel for the respondent would submit fhat since the matter is stillpending before the Commissioner and the State Govertment has only passed ttie order which has the effect of granting stay to the respondent No.2 who is the appellant before fhe Commissioner, no interference is called for in this petition. (4) On perusal ofthe document annexed vrith the writ petition it would appear that the respondent No.2 has preferred an appeal before the ' Commissioner. against tfae order passed by the Additional Collector, (-1 S^&SS'^^rv! ,"!' f' S. Z<SB vlw^ "'SKaissfy B :r3 'v^ Raigarh on 25 March, 2010, whereby the Additional Collector has permitted the pefitioner to exchMige land on payment of Rs.10,74,717/-. The prayer for staying operation of the order passed by Addttional Collector was rejected on 2/05/2010 andthereafter sumlar prayer was again rejected on 25/05/2010. (5) Feeling aggrieved by refusal of the appellate autfaority to stay operation ofthe order p^sed bythe Additional Collector.the respondent No.2 preferred a revision before the State Govemment andthe Secretary, Department of Revenue has passed the impugned order allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 25/05/2010 passed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division without giving any opportunity of hearing to ,the petitioner. (6) In view ofthe above, when admittedly the petitioner has not beea heardbythe Revisional Court ofSecretary, Departmerit ofRevenue before passing the order dated 16/06/2010, the instant petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the Secretary, Department of Revenue to rehear the revision petition and dispose it ofafter hearingboth the parties. (7) The impugned order is set aside. (8) The secretary shall dispose ofthe revision petition'within a period ofeightweeksfromthedateofappearanceofbothtiheparties. (9) The writ petition is allowed withabove direction. sd":^^^a s^s»at v^aass^^- /, M--ii-ji^