HIGH COURT OFCHHATTSSGARH. BiLASPUR Single Bench: fion'bie Shri H.L. uattu, CJ. Writ Petition No. 1009 of 2001 Respondents 1. Kheer Sindhu, Son of Bailochan Sahu, aged about55 years, 2. Indro, Son of Bailochan Sahu, aged about 45 years, - » 3. Chandro, Son of Bailochan Sahu, aged about40yeare, 4. Brindavart, Son of Bailochan Sahu, aged abeut 37 years All are R/o Village - Atunda, Tah,& Dlstt. Ma.hasamund (C.G.) Vs. 1. Khagesfciwar, S/o Yudhjshthir, aged about 32 years, R/o Village - Banobhata, Tah. & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Vidhyadhar, S/oYudhishthir, agedabouf 28 years, R/o Vill^e - Bartobhata, Tah. & Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) : 3. The State of Chhattisgarh Through - Sub- Divisional Officer Saraipali 4. The GolleGtoF, Raipur (G.G.$ 5. The Gommissioner, Raipur (C.G.) Writ Petition under Articles 226 /227 Of ttie Constitution of India. Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel forthe petitioners. ORALORDER (Passed on26B'April, 2007) Petitioners oiaim that they are the owners of the lands in Khasra Np.| 93 Rakba 0.777 Hqtr. haying purehased the sanie from the father ofi respondentNo.1. (2^ The SDO has taken suo motu proceedings under Sectionl 170B ofthe Chhattisgarh Land,Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'tt-i&Cocle').! After holding the enquiry he had passed an Order reverting back the !ands jnl ;1 : question tp the respondents. ^grieved btf'the said order petitiohers ha|d| iHi ^] SS^Ef -a- :i::;!: 1 <- K- fiied an appeal before the Collectorwho was the First Appellate Authority then. The Appellate Authority had aiso rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had fi!ed a revision before Revisional Authority'. The Revisional Authorityhas rejected the revision filed by the petitioners for non-prosecution. That is how the petitionere are before this Court in this writ petition. ' (3) in myopjnion.thepetitionsofiledbythepetitionerscannotbe entertained for the reason that, since the Revisional Authority has passed an order.rejecting the revision petition for non-prosecution, the petitionere should have filed an application Tor restoration of the said revision petition. But in the present case, the petitioners have rushed to this Court withqut exeroising that option that was available to them. (4) In that view of the mattec, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, the writ petition isdisposed of. The pefitionere, however, are permitted to file an appropriate appiioation before the Board of Revenue, since the post of Revisional Auttiority is now abolished, requesting them to recall the earlier order passed by the Revisional Authority and pass an order on merits of the case. If and when such applioation is filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue shail secure the record and consider theapplication ofthe petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance v/ith law. Ordered accordingty. Sd/- Oaef .»ustice