• Petitjoner HIGH COURT OP CHHArTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.1268 of 2006 Bhagiram Sahu S/o Shri Sukhdev Sahu Aged about 47 years. R/o Viilags Khartuli Distt.Dhamtari (C.<3.) Respondents Versus 1. Madhukanta W/o Lata Bireing 2. Laiita Bai W/o Chova Ram Sahu, 3. Tuisi Bai W/o Shri Arun Sahu 4. Lalita W/o Shri Bhagwati Uike 5. Sarqj Bai W/o tshwar La! S®n All R/o Village Khartuli Tahsil & Distt.Dhamtari (C.G.) 6. The Tahslidar Tahsil & Distt.Dhamtari (C.G.) 7. The Collsctor Tahsii & Di^t.Ohamtari (C.G.) 8. Chairman Revenue Board, Circu'rt Court at Raipur Dlstt.Ralpur (C.G.) 0?Vrit Petition under Articto 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Mr.Yashwant Tiv/ari, counsel for ths petitioner. Mr.Anoop Mazumdar, counsel for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr.Vinod Tekam,.Panel Lawyerfor responderrts Ne.S and 7/State. ^ (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER(ORAL) (30-8-2011) 1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challsnged the iegality & propriety of the order dated 7.2.2006 passed by the Board of Revsnua sn Rsvenue Case N0.39/A-19/2004-05, affirming the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the Coiiector, Dhamtari in Revenus Revision Case No.32A/19,'200S-04, v/hereby the Collector has cancettsd ths iease granted by the Naib- Tahsiidar in favour of the petitioner. ^ (^ 2. ! have heard leamed counsel fortha parties, perused the ordsr i'mpugned, copy of the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by tha Coiiector, Dhamtari, copy ofthe alleged lease granted by Naib-Tahdilar, copy ofdocrae of Civil Judge Ciass-!, Dhamtari in Civii Suit No.18A/04 dated 17.8.20SM, wrfiereby the Civii Judge Ciass-! has declarsd the tit!®of the petitioner over ths suit property and passed permanent injunction against tha Tahsikiar and the State reiating to possession, in which it has been dedared that ths present petitioner cannot be evicted from the iand without follcwii'^ the due process of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitSoner submits that after passing order of decree by competent Civii Court, revenue Courts become functious (Mco. State Government was having opportunity to challengs the decrse passed by the competent Civil Court before appropriate forum, but instead of challsnging such decree before apprepriate forum, the Collector has cancelted the iease granted in favour of the petitioner hotding that same is incompliance of the decree of the Ciwl Court. White dismissing the revision the Board of Rsvenue has not considsrsd the proprtety of the order passed by the Collector and has dismissed the revision. 4. On ths other hand, iearned counsei for respondants No.1 to 5 opposes the petition and submits that the Coliector has passed the order impugned incompliance of the decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-1, Dhamtari and has rightly canceiled the iease granted to ths petitioner. 5. From perusa! of the order impugned, copy of the order passed by the Collector and copy of order of decree passed by the Civil Judge Class-!, Dhamtari, it reveais that decree for declaration of titte and permansnt injunction has been granted in favour of the petitioner by the competent Ciwl Court. After passing of decrse by the competent Civil Court, decree can bechallenged before the appellate Court bythe party aggrleved. S. Revenue Court inciuding the Coliector who was party to the decree was not competent to pass the order impugned dated 11 .2.2CKS during subsistence of the decree passed by the Civll Court and by passing the order dated 11.2.2005, the Collector, i3hamtari has committsd illegaiity. Same illegality has been committed by the Board of Rsvenue. Both the orders impugned are not sustainabie under the iaw. Submission of Mr.Anoop Mazumdar is totally mlsconceived. 1k ..,'' ^gSgfife. 3 %.. -^ (^) 7. Consequentiy, the writ petition isaiiawed. Order irapugned dated 7.2.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue and order datad 1 1.2.2005 passed by the Collector, Dhamtari are hereby quashed. State Govsrnment or ths respondents may avail remedy avatlabie under the law. No order as to costs. - 8. Intsrim applications stand disposed of. Sdf- -1- p. sharma Judge