x {5%. i337“?~§f§$~,E 3W f¢A1w//’T7# IN THE HIGII COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT pEIITION (cyNo. IELW, / 2011 / PETITIONER /V G0vind Ram, S/o Shri Guhari Ram \ g0 Kastkar, Aged about 47 years, ~“ W WRIT PB‘ITIQN UNDER ARTICLE,226/2,27 OF‘THE CONSTITUTION‘QJf INDJA Q “kw, M@%\Z°J. j Res‘dent ’ of WI '. , P.H.N émsww" " %\............. 55/18, Tah & District Dhamtarr ....... wmé....... (C‘G‘) VERSUS RESPONDENT N‘m ~ A?” - !- /: State of Chhattisgarh Through the CoHector Dhamtari (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CI‘HIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1547 OF 2011 PETITIONER/ APPLICANT Govind Ram Versus State of Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTI N-APPLICANT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ (Single Bench: Hon'ble Shrl N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Ravi Ranjan Sinha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Pasged on 18th day of April, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition calls in question the legalit and propriety of the order dated 21-12-2009 passed by Board of Revenue (Circuit Court at Raipur) in Revisio Case No.A—7 1/2005—06 (Annexure P—lO) whereby and whereundef the petitioner’s revision was dismissed and the order passed by the Collector was affirmed. 3. Facts as projected by the petitioner are: Vide order dated 19—03- 1961, the tank in dispute was vested in the State Government, after hearingEx- malgujar (Ramgulam). He did not challenge the order till his death in the year 1998 and the above order attained finality. The petitioner assailed the above order in the year, 2005 showing himself as legal representative of deceased Ramgulam based on Will allegedly executed by Ramgulam in his favour. NO y n p w? 4. Vide impugned order, learned Board of Revenue dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner holding no right is accrued in petitioner’s favour pursuant to alleged Will deed as the order of vesting of Tank in the State had attained hnality. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality, absurdity or material irregularity in the impugned order. zit" 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I domot find any scope for interference of this Court in the impugied order. 7. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should rennin itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court 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. 8. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is /‘ liablewto be and is l’irtrciby dismissrd. /,, Sdl— Nié. Agtawa‘ Judge i ~