^ PETmOMER HIGti^PJ^LOF^HHATTSSGARilLjB^^ WritPetit[on_No.§285_of2008 Savitri Devi, W/o. Dindayai Agrawai, aged about 65'years, R/o. Thana Road, Raigarh, TahsJi & District Raigarh (CG). RESPONDENTS Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ratpur (CG). 2. The CoHector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG). 3. The Nazui OfRcer, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Sndia) SB: Hon'bje IVSr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: tVlr. Amit Sharma, coynset for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORAL OR&SR (Passed on thss 23rd day of September, 2608) By this petltion, the petittoner chailenges the vaiidity and legatjty of the order dated 11-1-2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Government, whereby the petitioner was dlrected to pay a sum of Rs.561/" as premium and the clrcular dated 2-8-1994 (Annexure P/2), whereunder it is provided that for renewa! of permanent Sease, a premsum shal! be calcujated on the rate of nine tlmes ofthe eartier premium fixed at the time of grant of iease. 2) The indisputabie facts, in nutshelt, as projected by the petitloner, are that the tease was granted cn 1-4-1962 for petftlon scheduled land, situated at GoshaJapara, Raigarh. The same was purchased by the petitloner from Guiabi Bai on 29-8-1973 by a registered sate deed. The petitioner's name was aiso mutated in the revenue records accordlngiy. The petJttoner, thsreafter, made an applieation for renewa! 6f the lease deed. The Nazut ^ -z— Officer, Ralgarh, obsen/ed in hss report (Annexure P/3) that the Sease of the petition scheduted iand was feased out to Guiabi Bai, v^lfe of Ganpat Roy on 1-3-1966 upto 31-3-1992. The fixed premium was 93.50. The petition scheduled iand Is piot No.100 area 15790 square feet. The said Sand was purchased by the present petitioner. Therefore, appiying muJtiplication of 6, a sum of Rs.561/- was fixed as premium and the appiication was made after deiay of nine years, a penalty of Rs.500/- shouid be imposed. The CoSlector, Raigarh, on the basis of report submitted by fhe Nazul Offlcer, Ralgarh, passed an order on 22-10-2007 accordlngiy. A copy of the same is not supptied In thls petltlon. 3) Mr. Sharma, learned counset appearing for the petitioner submlts that the clrcuSar dated 2-8-1994 (Annexure P/2) is contrajy to the provlslon-s of Sections 94 and 100 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "CGLRC 1959") whlch provldes for fixing the iand revenue or rent at one and a haSf times in case of agricultural land and in case of other lands at slx times, 4) I have heard Eearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5) The Secretary, Department of Revenue, after having consldered the case of the petitioner at tength, came to the concJusion &iat the applicatlon for renewat of the tease deed is flled in tlme, therefore, the penaity of Rs500/- cannot be iannposed. The penaSty part was set aside- On the Issue of premium, It was heid that cn renewai slx times of the premium tixed at the tlnie of grant of Sease is payable caiculating on that basis as the premium fixed was 93.50. The assessment of premium of renewal at Rs.561/- was found proper and legai. ^ -3- 6) The petitioner has further chailenged the circuiar dated 2-8-1^4 (Annexure P/2) on the ground that said circuiar vioiated the Sections 99 and 100 of the CGLRC 1959. This petition is basicaliy under Articie 227 of the Constitution of Incila, chaiienging the impugned order dated 11-1-2007 (Anrsexure P/1) passed by the State Governsnent. Thus, chattenge to circular dated 2-8-1994 (Annexure P/2) in a petition under Artlde 227 is impermissibJe. it is open to the petitioner to chaSlenge the same jn appropnate petition, if so advlsed. The order dated 1 1 -1 -2007 (Annexure P/1) Impugned herein Is Just, proper and ynexceptionabie, There Is no jufjsdjctionat error or infirmity In the impugned order. 7) This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurlsdictlon under Articie 227 of the Conststution of India, should refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where pen/ersify, iSSegaiity, IrreguSarity or jurisdlctlonat error is writ iarge on ihe face ofthe record, which Is not in the present case. 8) Irs vlew of the foregolng and for the reasons stated above, It does not warrarst any Snterference wsth impugned order dated 11-1-2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Government and as a resuit, ie petition js dlsmissed summarijy. Raju Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge