K)‘ “GP €QEIW’ §F CHH£TYE$G£RH AT EiLi§$PUR Writ Peiitkm {C} f‘i6355h ‘5 of *‘Aim.7 Peiitmnem "I. Shafda Wdio. Late Baieshwaf, Agec' abeut present near abeut 45 yeaya Jaiprakash Sic Baies'nwar, Aggei about gre$ent near abouz 2‘: yeara 3. Ku.Chanda, Dis. Eaieshwan #ged abau’: gsresent neaf abeut 1.9 yeat's 4. Yogi‘ta We. Ba£eshwa, Aged ai present near abaut 18 years A‘n absve resident sf Vi$iage Guam: (‘f Taha‘ii Eagicna. Eistwashnur (£w} vac Versas siate sf Chhattésgarh, Throngh: CoHec-tar. Jashpur. Bi$ttJa$hpur (CG) Subwaivisianai Gffioer. Jasnpur Nagar, DisttJaShpu: (CG) 3. Panéurwa $i0. Munesh, . is. Vinage Kurong. Tahsi! Eagichn‘ DigttJaghpm {r‘P‘ ) {‘Nni Petnion u .de:‘ ArticSe 227' 0f ihe Censiituiion of 5ndia‘; am Eespsndants ix} \VQ MrMancj Pamnjape, ccunsei €or the peiiiioners. MLVinod Tekam, Panei Lawyer fer respondents Na? and ’3agate. Q+ NLRavish Verma, couneei for respcndent NGB. {$3: Hcn’b!e H. '51P. $han’na, J.) ’é §RE§E & (20-§~20‘i 1) 1, i.A.NG.O2 fer ta. mg éocuments an reccré is. aiiowed. Documenis are f is wrir petiiien under Arricre 22? cf ine Cansrirurisn er indie the M E1 peiirraners have chaiienged the iegaiity & propriery of the Greer eated 4.6.200? paesed by the Beard er“ Revenue, Biiaspur, in Revisisn Case c. N RIG7iRiA-23/242i290?, reversing the order dated 13.11.2000 peseea’ by the Coiiecror, Jashpur, in Appeal Case Ne.‘i§r’A=23i§9’200Q whereby rhe Correcrer, Jashpur has reversed the erder 18."r§.3§ passea‘ by the Sub Divisienai Officer, u‘ashpur, in Revenue Case my ,_’€r~ N ‘5?iA—23i89=99, whewby the Sub Eivisienaé Officer has deciared ihe transaction nuii and vcid an direded for retum of pessgssicn of the Eand to respandent N93. i have heard iearned caunsei for ihe par€ie$, gerused the Grde: impugned anai other oraers; passezi by the au hcrities. 0rders cEeariy :eveai ihai withcut Gbi ining permigsion from me ccmpe€eni auQhcrity respcna‘ent N63 has entered inta agreement ts seii and has amid the iand which ig net permissibse unanier Sec§§en 165$) of me Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Ceée, 195:9 {m eher; iCee‘e‘}. in theee circumsmnces, by reversing me Greer pessee‘ by fne 6aliecmr the Eeard ef Revenue has also» nc‘: commétted any iiiegaliiy. Whiie considering the case under Secrion 1273=3 ef the Cede, the paniee are reqeired ta prcve that when the censtruction was made, whether i‘z was before 1%4 er after 1984. Admitediy, as per evidence er’ purchaser and eeiier, ii was eiier W84, iherefere, the order of the Coiiector was her susrarnahie under rhe raw. 5 dc nei fmd any hiegerity in the order impugned werraniihg ihierference” Censequehtiy, the writ peiiiien is iiabie m he dismiseed and ii is hereby dismissed. No erder as to casts. A9 4 Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge ;iV )it G) 1“‘