<'& SIN6L CH^JJON'BLE JUi iiTeur^ tfii? St fs3f9'^1 &.1-^% ^ S< w .r. le.e.i i r-iiu. 131; 1. Navai, S/o Late Bisuhuram Sond, Aged 2. Karan, 5/o Late Bisahuram 6ond. 3. Kalyan, S/o Late Bisahuram 6ond. 4. Kamlc Bai, b/o Lute Bisahyram 6ond. Al! R/o Vlllage Sambalpu", Tohsll & DlstS-. •i (C.6.) Vfi ^S&Sif°%^ li 1. Autma Rom, S/o Rohela, Caste Rawat, R/o Vlfi<s^© Bodrs, Tshsil ^ Di^tt. DhQiT^tsrl (C.6.) 2. State of Chhat+isgarh, throuqh Coliecto", Oistf Dhamtari (C.6.) Mr. b.N. Prajaputi, Advocate for the petitioners. ffir. Ajay- bwivedi, Deputy Sovernment Advocate for respondent No.S. Hssrd on udi^i^^lon. By' this petition under Art'icie 227 of the ConstiTution of India the petitioners have impugned the order of Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Saipur dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revision No.44/A-23/2004- 05 whereby the Board of Revenue has porj-Sy allowed the revision petltion o1 the petitioner fjled under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short- 'Code') and set aside the orders passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer .& the CoJSector of Dhamtari and sent back the matter for fresh adjudlccri-ion after permitting the Coftector/Additiona! Coilecror, &hamtari to exercise sower of suo-motu "evision with respect to the order dafed 15.1.1971 passed in Revenue Case No.757/A-21/1970-71 whereby the Additional Collector hcd permltt-ed the petitioners fo transfer their iand under Section 165 (6) of the Land Revenue Code. L-earned counsei for the petltioners referring to Section 49 of the Code argued thai' the amended sub-section (3) of Section 49 envlsages thut the appeilate authority may confirm, vary or reverse the order appealed against; or muy' take such additional evidCTce as it may consider necessary for passing its order. Provided that the Appeilate Authority shaH not remand the eose for disposai by cny Revenue Officer subordinnte to it. -^' '!'t!K~sstt!.. i3^ ,;, "^ ^v^"^ i^^y' '•^tasE.sS^' >- In view of the above provjsions the Board of Revenue could not have sent the matter to the Collector/Addltionai Coltector for conducting the mquiry' in exercise of suo motu review powers and instead ou'yht to have conducted the enquiry himoelf and pass the Qppropriate orders. It is not In disDute that the order-s of the S.b.O. a the Coltector were qu'gstioned by woy of rcyisloii under Scctloti 50 of the Codc, whieh ^rnpow^rs the Board of Revenue to enquire JnTo the tegallty ond propriety of uny order passed by' ony revenue officer subordinafe to him and pass necessar).' orders in reference thereto as it thjnks fit. Sub-section (3) of Sectlon 49 of Code refers to the power of uppejiate authorit^' and therefore, the above proyisions are not applicable in fhe, matter of "evision. In view of the above, there is no substance in the instant pefition, as- the order passed bythe Board of Revenue is stnctly in accordance wlth hw, the same deserws to be dismissed and according!y, It is hereby aismissed ut the admission stage itself. .____-_^-—— Consequently, I.A. No.l ais-o stands dismissed. } Sdf- Dhirendra Mishra Judge