^ ...rf:t^ !.- ^•^•^ ^ .»•• ^^s^.. ^..-•:^<?^%J..^-" (2) ^.-" ./'-','; 2^"\^f' .^">-^ C^ lo Hon'bleS.B. INTH E HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 0~' Petitioner W. P. N0.123Z/2007 ^C^^^Y ^ Leeladhar Agrawal S/o hlajiram Agrawal ^- R/o Naila, Teh - Janjgir (/^e - 'a ? <^v». Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) V/s Resporident ;?^ 1 O' ^' State of C.G. Through-Coliector Distt. -janjgir-Champa ^Vrit Petition under Article 227 of Coustitution of Indja HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP.(C) No. 1332 of 2007 Petitioner Leeladhar ^irawal Vereus Respondents StateofC.G. SB: Hon'ble Mr. Ju^ice Satish K. /^nihotri, J Miss Sofia Khan, Advocate for th®peUtioner. Miss Sunita Jain, Panel lawyer for the re^ondent. ORDER (Passad on this 8th day of March, 2007) The following order of the Court is pass«lby SaUsh K. Agnihotri, J. 8. This petKton, fited under Arttele 227 of the Constitution of tndia. chaBenges the order dated 2.1.2007 (Anneaire P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Appeai No. 582/A-67/2003-04. 9. The petitioner was found guilty of iUegal nuning <rf Mme stone and bolder on the Govemment land, sBuated at vMlage Birgahni, Disfrict- Janjgir Champa, bearing Khasra No. 172, area 5.64 acre, during ttie period Novembw - December, 1^2 and on 0.70 acre, during February - March, 1993. The Uiswna Inspector, after having visited tiie site and taving examined the workers, engaged in illegal mining, found that the p^ttioner wtthout obtaining required pennission of the govemment, indulged into ttie illegal mining. Accordingly, the Collector, Janjgir Champa vkte order dated 8.32004 passed in a Revenue Case No. 10/A-67/1998-99, imposed a penalty of Rs. 58500/-. 10.The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 8.3.2004, preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board <rf Revemie after having considered all the feicts and circumstances <rf (he case, uphekl the order passed by the Coltector and impt^itfon of the penalty under section 247(7) crf &ie ChhatBsgarft Land Revsnue Code. Accordingly, the appeal fited by dis petiSoner was dismissed vide iinpugned order datad 2.12W7. 11.1 have heard learned counset for the partte and have gone through the documents appended thereto. On peiusal 1 do not find any iVegaUty and infirmity. 12. It is well setBed principte of law that this Court whlle exerdslng ite jurisdK^ion under Article 227 of the Consfitution of India has limited jurisdtatfon to the extent of reviev/ing the case, in ttie event, there is peivereity, irr^ularity or iltesatity in e procsss of decision, not in the decision itsdf. 13.in view of ttse decision of Hon'bte the Supreme Court in the case <rf Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others {(2003) 6 SCC 67% it is abo wel! settled principle of law that under Arttole 227 of the Con^ituton of India, this Court hasjurisdicBonofjudidal review of the order passed by ths Board of Revenue, in ttie event there is mEBiifest and apparent errw on tha face <rf the proceedings based on the ctear ignorance or uttsr dferagard to tto provisksns of !aw or Siere is graw failure of justice or grave injusflce has occasioned ttiereby. 14.None of the above grounds are arailable to the peBioner. The p^itton is devoid of merit, which deseiv^ to be and is accordingly dismissed, summarily. Consequently, MO<V)P No. 843/2007 stands dismissed. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge