IN THE ftIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARHATBILASPUR CHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION 12271 N0; /2008 PETITIONER : Bhishamlal,S/oLateShivCharan^&A'__^oc(->:; A/fl4/r^^^/"-^V7 R/o Mirritola, Tahasil Guroor, Distri& DurgfC.G.) , . RESPONDENT A ^ ?yx^' .^ ^'* y v^> r^^ VERSUS /l) Board of Revenue, Chattisgarh Bilaspur f2] CoUector, District Durg(C.G.) /3) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balod, DurgfC.G.) /)•) Tahasildar, Guroor, District Durg ^ /^ ^i^ /~^^ 7~i^\ Yashodiya Bai, w/o Gayaram .^" R/oMirritola, Tahasil Guroor, District Durg (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 2510 OF 2008 ^w. Bhisham lal Versus Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwai. J.) Present : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel wiih Shri Sachin TamraRar, counsel forthe petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 2 to 4. None appears for respondent No.5. ORALORDER (Passed on 1st day of March, 2011) The matter is heard finaily in the absence of respondent No.5. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 18-03-2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. RN/05/R/A-6(A) 1246/2006. 3. Vide Annexure P-5 i.e. order dated 07-04-2005, the Tahsildar allowed the petitioner's mutation application. Later on, on an application filed by the respondent Yasodiyabai, recalled the above order under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code (hereinafter called as 'the Code') without summoning the •petitioner and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The above orderwas assailed by the petitioner inan appeal before the Sub Divisiona! Officer. The Sub Divisional Offieer ailowed the petitloner's appeai. The respondent'ssecorid appeai before the Additional Collector was also dismissed vide order dated 30- 11-2006 (Annexure P-11). The respondent preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue-has allowed the respondent's revision. Hence this petition. ,"' "l"i ""ai.L ?v&' "Nsffii 4. Learned counsei for the petitioner would submit: the order passed by the Tahsildar on 21-03-2006 (Annexure P-7) without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was per-se illegal and was jn violation of principleof natural justice and, therefore, the same was rightly set aside by the Syb Divisional Officer as well as by the Additional Coliector in First Appealand second appeal. However, without lobking into the above aspect of the matter, the Board of Revenue has allowed the respondent's revision which is not in aceordance with law deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned. 6. Itjs trite law that no order can be passed against a party behind his back. The learned Board of Revenue has erred in allowing the revision preferred by the respondent. The order being not sustainable in law, deserves to be and is hereby set aslde. Matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar for deciding the application preferred by the respondent Yasodiyabai afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 7. Petitioner is directed to present before the Tahsildar on 5 of April, 2011. Tahsildar shall give notice to the respondent since the respondent is not present before this Court and thereafter, shall deeide the application in accordance with law, on its own merits. Kvr ^- Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Bliill,Bli"""'i;i'?BBcaj,;-tiai)8aiisBE^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench: APPLICANT RESPONDENTS Hon'ble Mr. T.P. SHARMA & Hon'ble Mr. I.S. Uboweja, JJ Review Petition No.40/2011 Yashodia Bai Vs 1. Board of Revenue 2. Collector, District Durg 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balod, Durg (CG) 4. Tahsildar, Gurur, Dist. Durg. 5. Hitesh Kumar 6. Ved Prakash Lalita Sunita 9. Smt. Vidya Devi Present: ; None for the applicant. Mr. Neeraj Jain, Govt. Advocate for the State. Mr. Sachin Tamrakar, Advocate for the respbndents No.5 to 9 i.e. legal representatives of respondent No.5 ORDER (25.02.2015) 1. When the matter is called on 24.2.2015, none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Even today when the matfer is called QUt twice, there is no representation on hehalf of the applicant. 2i By this review petition, the applicant has prayed for review of the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (227) No.2510/08 whereby the learned Single by quashing the order in question has remitted the case to the Tahsildar for passing order afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. 3. Para-6 & 7 of the order in question read thus:- "6. It is trite law that no order can be passed against a party behind his back. The learned Board of Revenue has erred in allowing the revision preferred by the respondent. The order being not sustainable in law, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar for deciding the application preferred by the respondent Yasodiyabai afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Petitioner is directed to present before the Tahsildar on 5' of April, 2011. Tahsildar shall give notice to the respondent since the respondent is not present before this Court and thereafter shall decide the application in accordance with law, on its own merits. 4. In the light of Para-6 & 7 of the order dated 1.3.2011, virtually we do not find any ^-' 7. scope of review. dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is liable to be and is hereby 5. No order as to casts^ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd//-' - Inder Singh Uboweja Judge ^l^li