HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT WRIT PETITION (2271 N0. 4186/2011 PETITIONER Non-Applicant RESPONDENTS Applicants State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, D.K.8. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). Sheshendra Kishore Das, S/o Radhika Das, R/o Thana Khamhariya, District Durg (C.G.). Tikendra Kishore Das, S/o Radhika Das, R/o Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Smt. Vaidehi Devi, W/o Arjun Das Vaishnav, R/o village Chikhali, D/o Radhika Das, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Smt. Ratna Devi, W/o Shyam Kishore Das, D/o Radhika Das, R/o Sitabardi, Nagpur (Maharastra). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioner. Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sumit Verma, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. ^' 1. (Passedon 12/09/2011) By this petition. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 13/12/2010 passed by Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Circuit Court Raipur in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N./08/C.G./A-90(B)(3)/545/2010 whereby order dated 27/9/2010 passed by.Collector, District Kabirdham in Revenue Case No. 01-A-90-(B)(3) Yearl998-99 dismissing the appeal filed against the order dated 5/2/1979 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kawardha/Competent Authority under C.G. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 in Ceiling Case No. 48/B/91/74- 75 whereby Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the final order in ceiling proceeding and has declared 211.24 Acres land surplus. —^ v"^ Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioner an< Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sumit Verma, Advocate for the respondents are heard. Order impugned, order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer/Competent Authority & Collector while exercising appellate jurisdiction and return filed on behalf of respondents perused. Order impugned and order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer & Collector clearly reveal that land was owned by Deity Temple Radhika Vallabh and one Mahant Radhika Das was Sarwarakar. After death of Mahant Radhika Das, claim of respondents as a heirs of Mahant Radhika Das have been denied by the Competent Authority and First Appellate Court but vide order impugned, Board of Revenue has calculated entitlement of respondents along with Mahant Radhika Das (since deceased) and arrived at a finding that they are entitled for 222 Acres ofunirrigated land. While submitting the arguments and praying for dismissal of petition, counsel for the respondents submits that only one Deity is not situated in Temple and there are other Deities situated in Temple therefore, for just decision of the case even as per claim of the petitioner, oral evidence and spot inspection would be necessary. As per order impugned, Mahant Radhika Das was not holder of the land and holder of the land was Deity therefore, while considering the claim of legal. representatives and family members of Mahant Radhika Das; Board of Revenue has committed grave illegality. Aforesaid order is not sustainable under the law. Consequently, petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Case is remanded back to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration in accordance with entitlement of the land under C.G. Ceiling on < .^-^.^ \ '^"^^ •^: '^'i /£ ^ T/j ^.-""z"""jj? '^..^cy ^ -J Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. At the time of such consideration, parties are entitled to adduce evidence and in case of necessity, Board may direct for spot inspection. Parties shall remain present before the Board of Revenue for further hearing on 2/ 11/2011. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^: