t-6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ^^^^- :?!:• Petitioner Writ£etitionJ^oJ855of 2005 Gendu Ram, S/o Dhani Ram, aged about 40 years, resident of Surajpura Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Vibhag, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CG) The Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (CG) The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) Jula Ram, S/o Dukhit Ram Sahu, Sarpanch Gram '• Panchayat Surajpura, District Kabirdh&m.. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Surajpura, Panchu Ram Patel, Kohdiya, Block r/o Lohara, District Kabirdham. Barsati S/o Dukhit Kewat, resident of Khodiya, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) WRIT PETITIQN U_NDER ARTICLE_226/22.7 OF THE CQNSTLTUnQNQFLINDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Ms Renu Kocher, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3. ORDER (Passed on this 3rd Day of Pebmary, 2009) 1. The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the order dated 21.2.2005 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Collector, Kabirdham in Revenue Case No. 53-B-121, year 2003-2004. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Gram Panchayat, Surajpura had passed a resolution in the year 2000 to lease out tank for fisheries for a period of 10 years. The lease deed was executed on 17.7.2000 (Annexure P/3) in favour of the^petitioner. Though, the lease of the tank was granted for -—'' a period of ten years but on 25.7.2003 by resolution No. 7 the lease was cancelled and thereafter on 10.8.2003 by resolution No.6 the lease was granted to the respondent No.6 for a period of five years. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before fhe Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kawardha, which ^ •^ '"s. ^ /'! fcs--'-' ^/',/ :':""' was dismissed by order dated 25.2.2004 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.2.2005 (Annexure P/l). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of ten years by lease deed dated 17.7.2000 (Annexure P/3), the same could not have been cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing or assigning plausible reasoa.. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the records appended to the petition. 5. I do not find any jurisdictional error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. Both the authorities below have examined the matter in detail and have passed the reasoned orders. Learned Collector in his order dated 21.2.2005 (Annexure P/l) has held as under:- "^ f?TKr "^iqicf^ c^ ff^?or (Ta.TT TPT q'tfpT(f '(t,'<"ll{<l ^ srf^^ w sracf^T f^qr tfan q? w fe 17.7.2000 ^t ?pf Tf^recf -q;iruppr ^ STCT '3^ u'wi'i ^'o 5 R-II'* 8.7.2000 ^ ^f^i 4^pr ~^ gS-ll&Tl-l rtldl^ 'W ^IrCT 41cl-1 ^g ^ST (ft^T ^ ^ f^TC uIT'ft cfi^ ^T 3IT^?T f^TT t i 'S^Q Tre^ ^t sraRr •w<\ ^t^ vi 7nTRWT ^ ffTcTI? ^O 7 R-11'* 28.7.2003 ^ gT^T 4^'il'i W 1ISCT ^f^Ki f^vt 'vn i R-II'* 10.8.2003 ^t ff^-IIETl-) dldl^ ^t 5 ^ ^ f^R •ftdTT ^t ^ fSre^' ^raffSw <^eft ^^'Hirf) (4'<^-1'?)«1"l<ti(lf—3)^ gRT 12.800/- d-'ll^ ^ l '^•{ft ftr-T 10.8. 2003 cst gyiNN tirera ^it ^ra c(tf ^ f?p? tfrCT qroT-T tg ^'('tllrfl q»t ^ ?)T U'WM mfcr f^qr ^rar t i ^^rftspirarrf 5T?r apftcftq ^rraTera (ai^f^iTpfN srfSr^Tft ^qqf ) tfan ^Q "yiiiioi'i) '^' T^CT ^t ^lf ^ITIT ^fPItT ^ 3TT^?r 17.7.2000 T^ 1TeeT 3f^£T ^t yi'oyRt TPT ^cqreu ^ ^sr sift^^g ^ siW^i ^ ftfdFr '•i^T ?hff 1 ^l 3ffiKl^Q ^ aclell'fr-1 ^ f^(T ^ttfT t ft» ^^grura>crf 'tyil %t (ft-T tl^ ^ ftfT? ^t 'OTreI TTe^T g^-T feqr ^raT SIT i '^cf ^•ftcmft Tuf). j^T'iT^ '3?cr arar^ •Tleii4l ^f 4>|if<)l^l 3ff^(T q^ ^. ^?rt' •41 (lldl^ ()W ?^ ^ Rn? •fldi41 T? ^ i^ ^Tqr aff^xr t ^ift fterRr ^' PTRT "yioidi gm ^?Tfr ^t spfter qit I^R^T ^^ ffSff ^'(OlJl ^ T5T 4' uffft TTC^ ^T ^STTqcr ^@W? ^t^ f R> ^fe ^ ^ t 1........" - ' 7. 8. Thakur On perusal of the documents I found that the lease agreement (Annexure P/9) was executed on 17.7.2000. Initially, the lease was granted for a period of three years i.e. from 17.7.2000 to 16.7.2003. By overwriting, the period has been converted for 10 years. In place ofyears also from '3' to 'IO' has been overwritten and in place of date it has been overwritten as '16.7.2010'. Both corrections are not initialed. On close scrutiny, it appears that the document has been tampered by overwriting. Therefore, the conclusions reached by the authorities below are just and proper, which need no interference. It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition and the same is disruissed at motion stage. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1433/2005 is also dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Ag"Aom Judge