{> 5 5,,, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR%(V Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.392 of 2011 PETITIONER: Smt. Rajkumari Sahu, W/o Dayaram Sahu, aged about 35 years, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kachna, P.S. & Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. The Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Circuit Court Raipur (C.G.) 2. Akshay Dani, S/o Madhusudan @ Dhananjay Dani aged about 25 years (Applicant) 3. Kaustub Dani, S/o Madhusudan @ Dhananjay Dani aged about 30 years. (Applicant) 4. Smt. Vishakha Dani, W/o Madhusudan @ Dhananjay Dani, aged about 45 years. (Applicant) 5 Ail 2 to 4 are resident of Village Kachna, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) at present R/o Ratanshri B—70, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur «16) 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicant) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia} Present: Mrs. Anju Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Prafull Bharat, counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (1994m1n \ 1 By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 10 11- 2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circwt Court, Raipur) in Revenue Revision Case No.RN/04/R/A—68/385/2010 whereby the Board ‘ 2 (3; of Revenue has quashed the orders passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Bhakhara in Revenue Case No.6/A—68/2009-10, dated 28-6-2010 and 18-8-2010. . l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. . The Tahsildar has initiated proceeding on the basis of complaint made by certain persons. The order passed by the Tahsildar was challenged by respondents No.2 to 4 herein before the Board of Revenue, but respondents No.2 to 4 have not made the aforesaid persons/ complainants before the Tahsildar, as party. Before passing the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has also not provided opportunity of hearing to the parties. Any order without providing opportunity of hearing to the necessary parties or to the parties at whose instance the order which was impugned before the Board was passed, is virtually one of nullity. . Consequently, the petition is allowed. Order dated 10-11-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) in Revenue Revision Case No.RN/04/RIA—68/385/2010. The case is remitted back to the Board of Revenue for providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and for passing order afresh. . Parties are directed to remain present before the Board of Revenue on 2"“ of November, 201 1. . lt is made clear that the parties are still at liberty to approach the appellate or revisional forum in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and if they me such appeal or revision before the competent forum in accordance with the Code, the aforesaid direction for providing opportunity of hearing to the parties by the Board of Revenue and the direction for appearance before the Board of Revenue would not come into way for deciding appeal or revision, on its own merits. Soma 7. No order as to costs. Sd/— T. P. Sharma Judge