K :.. M ;ta. c^s IN 'sss. ittQH 'CBiEHa^E'^si^aro't^«FB^^ •e.©*4 ^BIT p^3S^:N6^:^fe^.J^/t)3. fcli II iya j,:. 'u' r! JH? pSTITmSER ^ei^s^B& ^^ 'B^^ai y'ca3a<3' Ku^, resl^eayte o£Nlgartesid Tab• Takh Bfcp&c- tt s&t.ailagnM: ^C.Q.-^ - - , :•' ,--,.' : -.-•,:',: •y&sses f'r :S 1 'iil1 '•'f- •1 SSSEOajSNTS ^. • ..•^^ss '•^^^:" ,.^~rT~t':.;'.':.. •. ..''.; . •.'.'.. • '. '<1-W^NS>1 ''^iS^ [':&^^ l..":"Bi®'B6:asdo:£';as'<'!a'»u8:;sfc'': .'. -: •.^au.a%ar. (.e.G.),.''/:; :.' 2. 'B-ie sub Qf^Lsdoaal otflcfer (R.)Kofea Tab* Ko'fea Qt^t. BiI.asipur^'G.Q.).;''':..••,'-""1 3. Ka^ BA W^ ^anaialaaa.ar ::. •I^^QioreBi'a.'Tatt.'Ealchatepa.r .. Ett stt «SllasEUE < C»G.) .'e "i- :tKT3c'Eaw:^®».;a^.Q^sgrt»^T?©^'iHS.1. .<^Sf3^I3^'^^aK^-A:%&;fiiB&:.®INS'-0'KSEI;t •'ssess^WsQS^ f^esSQ:::Bf':sssi!S^sKKCw: •:l$3ai)SH^';Maa^iE^^ffl a F'?Ri3^ffl^^Eaij;aBBtm^'c^ :MWlSX'VS^f S^S j^k,ffiSa3SKV3 ^.'SW,K3BSIit^'^^ ^QT^i(a3a ^?'»FtgBo;^^E.T;-^^;'^^:?:T-'^~^ HSGijGOURT OF CHWyTJSGAiW AT Bil-ASPUR Sinaie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Justlce Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No.2421 / 2GG3 PETSTiCT'iER Versas Godavari Ths Bmrd of Revenue and ottiers. ShriRaTOKumaFTiwari.counwiforthepeCuonef'. Miss Sangests ?«l!ishra,PanslLav;yerforthsState/responttentNo.2. Nonsfw resisondsnt No.3. PETmONUNDERWCTiGLE2270FTHECONSTSTUTieWOFiNDEA ORALORDER (24^9.2010) Petitioner has chaiiengedthe orderpa^ed bythe Board Of Revenue on 2tfii May, 2003 {Anneasre P/1). (2) Qn tha applreation <rf r^pondent No. 3 Kamln Bai tiie TahssSdar Taitfsatpur, District—BUaspur passeti anorder for muNins hsr name In the revenye Tscords pertaimRg to the sylyKt iand.1 Hu^and of ttie preserrt peSUoner ftipved an -aw>ea\ before the Sub Dsvisionai Officer, (Rwenue) Kota, which was aiiowed on 14-02-2033 (^insiwre P/2). By *is order ttie matterwas remanded tiacScjo ttie Tahssidafiyr decjslon afresh. (3) The respondsnt No. 3 prefened a revlsfon before e Board of Revenue,whteh has been aiSo'ijred S»ythe impugned order witftoui issuiTO notice to the peGGoner. (4) LearnedcpunselfOrthepetitiQnerwou'idsubmltfcattheoriJsr^^ed t»yttie Board of Revenue is in violation of Principtes 6f Naturai Jusliceand / •". ' ; ' ••'• : ' .'11 : ' •: '• ^ • tnatftie same couid not have been passed wtitsout issuinginoSice to the petittoner. ft^\ o.--.--^.-- ection 50 of Chhatiisgafts Land Revenu& Code, 19^ Codef confers revistona! pawais on ihe Boaid of ftevenue. Provtep (iil) to •(iwshQtt'ffiff v '^ -2-.' sub Section (1) srf Section 50 providw that no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on ttse parUes interested and oppotbinitygiven to them of bemg heard. (6) On perusai of the order passed by the Board of Rewnue'it wouid appearfrom paraaraph 2there<rf ttiatttie Board was hearingthe revision on admission and stay; ho^rever it procseded to decide the Fevision iiseSf wMiout issuing notice to the petitioner. it has been obsewed in fraragraph 3 of the Impugned order that since ttiere is an apparwit i!iega!iiy in ttie order passed by the Sub DivisionaS Cfficer, there Is no requirement of issuing notice to ttie oetitioner. (7) The exereise of revistoria! power byttiS Board of Revenue •s in ciear breach of th^ stafartory pro\rision contamad m prowso fili) sub Swtion (1) of Section 50 of the Code. The impugned ordercannot be sustained in Saw, ffie same desefvesto Be anyisherebyset-asicte. (8) The petition js aiiow&d. The Board of Revenue shai! now re-hear fce reYistonafterissuingnsMicetQtMrththeparti®. :^::'.'.Sdy-'-,:/.y:.:'^: PrashantKuinarMishra ;.- "•'^Judge::.^ ...:'..:,.,:; K-