BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (227) No. ^<, \3 of 2010 PETITIONER ^ .^" \ 9^ Mahant Goutamanand Brahmachari Sarwarakar, aged about 78 years,S/o Guru Pita Mahant Chandra Shekharanand, R/o Killa Mandir, Tamerpara, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENK ^" .:1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the ^7 •fl' .fV» Collector & Registrar Public Trust, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) (according to theimpugned order) (. ^cS 1-\V'^~'''^>.^^/1 ^ P^^'"^'^ r^^^P^;^^. The Collector, Durg, District-Durg ^^t?^'^. ^L.^ ^^^^... >-'"*'^y ^-y -i.>fl ' /^ 3- Sub-Divisional Officer/Registrar Public ^'^ ...^"'G^^^' ^ Trust, Durg, Distnct-Durg^C.G.). "?^J^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIG1-E227 OF THE GONSTITUTION OFINDIA. w^ :^"- i / II ^s.^ii. t.?....^r/ '.-fil ^ S.B; lain'I^SKiAl^B^antiEBm^^^B^ pEnnoNER Ain^a'teiy<my@2'^^No.?75t3iW10 : MakuutfGwrtaUttanaitdBrahmachBri :San»arahar::;.:•',:,.' :/ •.,• '• . :; RESPOISBEN'FS Versus StafettfQdiattisgsu'haiKl oUiers [oner. S§^^:'^.S. %C>^F^ D^^ 3C:'(»§l']91»aB 9t.INlM& Qglffi^MSER • <iis.ji.2Qa®5 Witb tfae <;ons®ilt|(^^m^^^ ffieparttes, 1heaiatterisUea(fl^aad^is||!S^iBE^^|^^ (2) The Sub i)Msioaal^l^|SiaRi|^^aet^ asl^gis^^ S^^ Tm^ imder ^ jMTOvisioas of|@li^^ s"1' initiated prowedings ^reg^ KilaMandir TamCTpai^ I]hi%. The p^tiotwr iBOV'M^otgestf^li^^e the Sub DNsuonalO'ffieer, R®veiH. ;regM€u%;ttiie o^the Rfigistrarto winfiime te itfocesding ^ tfaat SubSDivisiQnaLQflE er,Iievenue^I)i^^}^^ Registnff^PuNic 'Inist in TOcwdaaee^^^ turaed do^ ^ ^ petitionCT's apipeal^b^re the <^^^ <AriasxMreI^),^how®vi^!lusrevi^^ .,.t!5"s3EiIS /y^, r'il<&!R3Jgj^ Y' Revenue was allowed by the iinpugned order dated 31/10/2009 (Annexure P-1). (3) Leamed ctHinset ^ ^ petiti not aware ofthe fii)^ order passed^^^^ the Board af Revenue oa 31/10/2009 vMleAnaexure P-1 andin&etthepetitioxier had earfter moved attapplication forwitfidrawal oftN revi^^ pending before Board^ofRevemiebymovmganapplusation Annfixure P-6, however, ignoriagthisiHayeT,AeBoardofReveauepas^d1liefinalwder. (4) The petitioaer again nioyed aaaCT»licati<Ki fiu- review o£the ordCTAnne)aireP-t^^groi^^aiW.P.(227) .2^ betw^ DufgajRrasad;Ma|liQbjya Vs. Gihmnim^ anothw, tiiis court has already deeided tiie question regMding the competeney ofthe Sub Divisional Of5cer,RevCTiy^ Durg to fiinctioa as Registrar Publie Trust, Diu^ under the provisions of Asst, 1951. However, tiie reviewpetition hasalsobeea dismissedt^ ordCTdated 25/10/2010 (Annexure P-9). (5) The only question arising for determination is whether the Sub Divisional OfGcer Ssvenue, Durg was compctetrt to entertain tiie applicalionpreferredbyfhepetitioner^registtati^ uitder the in"ovisioasofAcl,19Sl.Tfaisquestion faas already been decided t^ diis court by its (Hderdated 28/01/2010 passedinW.P. (227) No. 2(102/2009, Dur^ftasad Mahobiya^ eteiiman ReveiiueBoard and anothCT(Anne!xureP-7). IHI% ^.';^^-^\: ^ (6) In view (rf Ais legal pbsiticm^ diough by Ifae impugned cN^ the petftioner's revision has beeft allowsd, however yet since the petitioner now waats to proseeute Us attdicati^ registration of Ae Kfla Mandir as PubUc Tnist; and smce tiie matter is already covercd byorier passalby tiiis courtin W.P. (227) No. 2002/2009 K is directed tiiat the Sub Divisioaal Revenue, Durg/Registrar Publie Trus^ Durg shall now^ eonti^^ registration ofPublic Trust on the application filed bytfiepetitioner on 3"li:ebniaiy, 2004 (Annexure P-2). (7) Consequently, m view ofthethe eariier otder pas court m W.P.(^)^^02<2(X)9^impug)^oiteis^^^^ (8) ThewTitpetitionisalIOwed. (9) NoQTderas tocosits. Sdtl- . prasbantKnmarMishra Judge ^SMa °r-