% ^^ IN S'HE HIQH C0URS .TOBICA'rURE M' BII.ASPUR (C.8.) WBI'E, EE'mzeas N®»-S'-S^®F290 BETWEEN Blai.B'Jan snn of-B<adI»u OBna,, agad abeut <s5-Seaafs, a'esldent ©fVlllage E&nai.'Eehsil Suraj'pur, Biat.ciet. sarguja (©e). . . ; :KEfI'EI(WSR ..-• k^^"" A N D A» A. Sie State ®fCtihattisgarh, Ihrough the Seeretary Separtment of Bsvaiue Man-'tealay, B.K.s. Bua.lding, Ralpur (eo). She OBlleeter sarguja at Mtoj.teptir. ahe sub Mvisio&al oefleer surajpia-, Bigtriet; garguja (ce). fhe Hanager, 2ila sahakarl Bank, wnbikapiar. S»8 nag®r, . . sahakart Barik 'W.shrampur Tehsll Sarajgur Ed.strict sargaja. Mahavir Erasad g'aiswal s/9 Mahesfawari ibe then sapervlsi.or sahakari Bank •vishrampur 'nsw retired, iTesident ©fsalka. P»s. and lehsil surajpur Bls'ferlct. sarguja (CG). TOtl Ran s«n ef aanjit .by caste BajwaE, resident ®fSalka.'EehsilSurajpur BLstriet (ee). XB^ONBEN.'ES 12 PETITiaSN IMHEB AK'EIG&ES 226^27 06" iaE C0NSTrTQTION 0E- INDIA tn- 1;TH-1 y 1]l:T.i- HIGHGOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBIt.ASPUR Sinafe Bench: Hon'bleShri.JustieePriishant KumarMishra Petitioner ResDondents Writ Petition No.555 of2003 Dhirjan versus TheStateof Chhattisgarh and others Present: -:. • , .' . - : , '. :. ^ Shri Arun Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 t03. ^ •' • .". . ;: ! .; . 1 ,: :; . :' -.• No oneappearsforptherrespondents. ' WrifPetition underArticle 226/227 oftheConstitutionoflndja ORAL ORDER \w (Passeddn9L"September,2Q10) Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer(Revenue),Surajpur,DistrictSurgujaon 27-2-2001 (Annexure P-4) andtheorderpassedbytheCollector,Surgujaon4-; 3-2002 dismissinghis appeal as barred by limitation. ^..'.:'. '., • ..: '•"" "'.' 3. Brief facts of the case are that,the petitioner obtained a loan 6f Rs.3,000/- from respondent N6.5 Co-operative Bank, Vishrampur and mortgagedthe subjectland. On hisfailureto repaytheloan, the land was auetioned in course ofexeeution of the recQvery order. It was sold inifavourQfrespondentNo.7Kati Ram. 4. The petitioner preferred Revenue Case N0.39-A23/81-82 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Surajpur, which wasideeided > •'t: against the petitioner and ih favour of respondeht No.7 on 15-4- 1991. The petitiorier preferred an appeal before the Colleetor, Surguja, which wasdismissedon 31-8-1991. Thematter was not subjeGtedto any further appeal or revision before the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bilaspur or before the Board of Revenue. The orders passed by the Sub-Divisiona! Officeron 15-4-1991 and by the Collectoron31-8-1991, thus, becamefinal. 5. The petitioner^again mbved an application in the year 1999 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) questioning the auction of his land in favour of respohdenl No.7 by the Co-operative Bank/respondent No.5. TheSub-Divisional Officer, Surajpur, by his order dated 27-2-2001 (Annexure P-4), rejeeted the prayer bn the groynd that the matter has already been decided by the Sub- Divisional Officer and the Golleetor. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collectpr, Surguja, which was barred by limitation and it was so dismissed by orderdated 4-3-2002. 6. Learned counsel for •the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are contraryto law because the petitioner's land could not have been sold to a non-tribal in the recovery proceedings. 7. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 has supported the order by submitting that the subsequent application, which has been decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide Annexure P-4, was barred under the principle of resjudicata. 8. After hearing learned eounsel ferthe parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitionerhas nbt challehged the earlier ;t' .8-.. Vk.^'../ °*-»tS»n^ orderofthe Sub-Divisional OffiGer passed on 15-4-1991 and by the Collectoron 31-8-1991, dismissing his prayer for setting aside the auction of the land and, thus, ratifying the sale in favour of respondent No.7, his subsequent application was barred under the principle of res/ud/cate. 9. The Sub-Divisional Officeras well as the Collector have not committed any illegality by dismissing the application moved by the petitionerto re-agitate the matter. There isno substance in the writ petition, whichfailsandisherebydismissed. 10. of. In view of the above, M.(W;)P.No.2055/2004 stands disposed IJ1»1 '::../.;Sd^..^^:; ••;.;;. PrashantKumarMishra JuSge ^''•.