N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.3613 of 2007 w/ PETITIONER: Vinod Kumar Kheerwal, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Deen Dayal Kheerwal, resident of Police Station Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Board of Revenue, through its President Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Biiaspur. 3. Collector, Distti. Raigarh (CG) 4. Additional Collector (Mining), Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1, None present for respondent No.2. 3&4. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (18—8—201 1) in L I 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 5-5- 2006 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Appeal Case No.76/A-67/2004-2005 affirming the order dated 26-3-98 passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh in Revenue Case No.41/A—67/1988— 89 after remission of the case to it by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior in Appeal No.72-1/92 vide its order dated 3-1—94. 2. l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and copies of other orders. . Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that initially, the case was remanded on the ground of insufficient enquiry, after remand of the case the Additional Collector was under obligation to enquire into the matter on the basis of remand order, but instead of making such enquiry, the Additionai Collector has done his formality and without any further evidence, the Additional Collector has passed the order and has imposed a fine of Rs.37,000l— which is iliegal per se. Learned counsel further argued the order passed by the Additional Collector was challenged before the Board of Revenue in appeal, but the Board of Revenue has also committed the same illegality by dismissing the appeal. . In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court is required to examine the proceedings of the Courts & and the Tribunals subordinate to it, but cannot sit as an appellate authority. Both the orders impugned reveal that the revenue authorities have complied the procedure prescribed and have passed the orders. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground for exercising the supervisory jurisdiction in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. W5 Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge Soma