^'3 H!GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR io. 2241 of 2007 Petitioners Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 7. 8. Ram Singh aged 52 years son of Kartik Ram Gond, Q^^nf|</\i^i C't'n/fi^ ->^<nt/v»-i 7^ i fj^.*^ f/* f-fMn f^ r<ai •'i'-iG.t i ^ll J^i i ctycu / ^ yt?ciii> ovj l vi J'nankatGond, Dasoda Bal aged 65 years daughter of Heera Singh Gond, Bhagmati aged 6Q years daughter of Heera Singh Gond, Sameram aged 50 years son of Heera Singh Gond, Ail ofthem resident of Viliage Baksahi, Tahsil Paii, Distt. Korba Lakhan !a! aged 55 years son of Banshiial, Gajanand aged 50 vears son of Banshilal, Hari aged 45 years son of Banshiial, Kailash aged 45 years son of Banshiial, Uma aged 40 years son of Banshilal, Narayan aged 35 years son of Banshiiai, Alt ofthem Caste Kalar, resjdent of Village Baksahi, Tahsi! Pali, Distt. Korba (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh, through Coilector Bilaspur (C.G.) Board of Revenue, through Secretary, Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, iiiaspur HQn'bleJustice Shri Satish K. Aanihotri Present: Mr. Kamal Pandey, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for ihe respondent No. 7. DER 1. (Passed on this 11th dayofAprii, 2007) By this petition, filed under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Impugns the judgement and order dated 16.11.2006 (P/1), passed by the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision Case No. 10/A- ^3uuu4-U3, whereunder the revision has been rejecied. Ths indisputabte facts in nutsheii are that Banshiial, father of the respondents No. 1 to 6 had purchased the land from Late Savitri Bai on 17.04.88 with prior permission oftheAdditional Collector, Bilaspur. The petitioners have cha!lenged the order of the Collector dated 19.03.2001 on the ground that the necessary enquiry as contemplated under Section 170-A of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 1959') has not been heid. The Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, agreeing with the findings recorded by the Sub Divisionai Officer and the Collector, held that the proposed sa!e was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the Code, 1959. Thus, the provision of Section 170-A of the Code, 19-59 is not attracted to the case. it is also not the case of the petitioner that the sale was obtained by fraud or otherwise. have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsei appearing for the respondent No. 7 and perused the judgment and order, passed by the courts below. i am of the viev/ that thers is no error apparsnt in the records and findings rscorded by ths courts below and subsequently confirmed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur is legal and valid. Even otherwise, there is no procedural irregularity in the order and it does not suffer from any infirmity, irreguiarity, iliegality or procedural error to call for indulgence of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. B/- Sd/- SaUshK.Agnihom Judge