W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.4229 of 2007 PETITIONERS: (a) Budhram Patel, aged about 5O years, S/o Late Shri Bhorelal Patel, R/o Village Kumha‘ri,‘ Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) (b) Smt. Ram Kunwar, aged about 45 years, D/o Late Shri Bhorelal Patel, W/o Shri Bhojram Patel, R/o Village Ram Nagar, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) (c) Smt. Khel Kunwar, aged about 42 years, D/o Late Shri Bhorelal Patel, W/o Shri Radheshyam Patel, R/o Village Ram Nagar, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) (d) Bundram Patel, aged about 38 years, S/o Late Shri Bhorelal Patel, R/o Village Kumhari, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) (e) Sukhram Patel, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Shri Bhorelal Patel, R/o Village Kumhari, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Lakheswar Chouhan S/o Chhedu Ram Chouhan, Aged about not known, Rlo Ex—Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Tundra, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTSI: {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (2-8—201 1) W 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 28- 3-2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (Circuit Court Raipur) in Revision Case No.M/14lR/B-121/39/2006 aftirming the order dated 22- 8-2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Baloda‘Bazaar in Revenue Appeal No.19/B-121/2005-06 against the order dated 29-4-2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh in Revenue Case No.58/B/121 year 2002-03. . I have heard Iearned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned and copies of other documents. . At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that lease of the iand has been granted by the Additional Tahsildar, Kasdol vide order dated 27-12-2000 to father of the petitioners, same has not been challenged before the Sub Divisional Ofhcer in first appeal, inter alia, some complaint has been med before the‘Sub Divisional Officer and vide order dated 5-2-2003 the Sub Divisional Ofticer has dismissed the complaint. Again complaint was med and the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 29-4-2004 passed in Revenue Case No.58B/14 year 2002-03 which was under challenge before the Additional Collector under Section 44 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code’) as second appeal in which the Additional Collector has reversed the order dated 29- 4-2004 and has cancelled the patta granted by the Additional Tahsildar, same was challenged before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector.- Learned counsel further submits that the appeal filed before the Additional Collector was not competent and all subsequent orders are also not competent. . On the other hand, Iearned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the revenue authorities have passed the orders in accordance with Iaw. . As per Section 44 "of the Code, the order allotting lease of land was appealable before the Sub Divisional Ofticer under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Section 44 of the Code and the order passed by the Sub Divisional 9 Offlcer in appeal was also appealable under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Code. . In the present case, no hrst appeal has been preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer and the complaint has been made Which has been duly inquired. ln absence of any order in first appeal, the Additional Collectorl Collector was not competent to entertain any appeal under Section 44 (2) of the Code. However, by entertaining and allowing appeal, the Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar has committed grave illegality and has exceeded the jurisdiction vested on it. likewise, the Board of Revenue has also committed same illegality, instead of correcting the illegality committed by tlrle Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar, such orders are not sustainable? under the law. . Consequently, the petition is allowed and the orders impugned passed by the Additional Collector & the Board of Revenue are hereby quashed. However, the respondents or the effecting party are at liberty to approach proper forum, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. l 3dr ‘ ‘ T.P. Sharma Judge Soma