^o HI6H COUftT OF CHHATnS6ARH AT BILASPUR PFTinONER Wr'ttPetttionJClJ^, 6437 ej 2007 Sunny S/o James, aged about 65 years ft/o Viiiage Borari, lehsii Durg, DistricT Dun (CS). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisaarh, throu9h the Secretar/, &epartment of Revenue, &.K.S. Bhawan, Mantroiaya Raipur' (C6). 2. The Coitector, Oistrict Dura (CS). 3. Sub Oiyisionai Officer, District £)urg(Cff). 4. Naib Tehsildar, Dlstrict Durg (C6). (WRIT PETCTION UNOER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INMA) Aanihotri, J.) Present : Shri Jitendra ©uotaAdvocats for the petitioner. 0»ass®don this 2Sth of Octobar. 2007) 1. The petitioner challenges 1+ie le9ality and validity of 1+ie order dated 10.07.2007 oassed bv Board of ftevsnue in ftevision Case No. R.N. 05/R/A-74/398/2007 (Sani Vs. State of Chhatt-isgoirh), on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for loss of crops due to naturai calami-tv. 2. The petitioner hos pointed out a letter vuritten to 1+ie Joint Collector to 1+se Officei''-in-Char9e, Public Information Branch, District office, Ourg, statinQ that under part 6-4 of the Revenue Book Circular, there is a orov'sion for orant of compensation. 3. The Board of Revenue, by impu9ned order dated 10.07.2007 observed 1+iat there is no Brovision under ourt 6-4 of the Revenue Book Circular t-' to grant comDensation to the oetitioner. Further, the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to consider the case falling under provisions of part 6-4 of the Revenue Book Circular. However. liberty was granted to the petitioner to make an application to the State Sovernment for consideration of his prayer. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already made an apptication dated 11.05.2007 (Annexure 9/7). It appears that the petitioner has made dn appiication dated 11.05.2007 i.e. prior to decision of •tfte Board of Revenue, which stills remain undecided. TTie counsel submits that the Collector be directed to consider and decide 1+ie said oppiication of the petitioner. 5. Be 1+iat as !t may, without going into the merits of the cass, it is expedient in the interest of justice 1+int the Cottector", t>urg, be directed to consider the application of the petitioner ond pass aopr'opr'iate order, in accordoince with law, as exDeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months. 6. In view of the foregoing, nothing survives in the matter. Accordingiy, the writ Detition is diSDOsed of. •' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sdhu