&IGH COUR! OF CHHATTI§GARH A! BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art.227) N030!) of 2011 (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Mr.Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the petitioner/State. None present for respondent No.1. Mr.Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for respondent No.2. Mrs.Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.3. (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. $harma,' J.) ORDER (15-1 1—2011) . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia the petitioner has challenged the iegality and propriety of the order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Biiaspur, in Appeal Case No.A/O2/S.A./B-105/115/2008, reversing the order dated 11.6.2008 passed by the Coilector of Stamps, Bilaspur in Case No.45/B- 1 05/2007-08. 2. l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and order passed by the Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties frankly admit and submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed in Writ Petition (Art.227) No.285 of'2011 and other connected matters vide order dated 5.9.201 1. . Petiticner State of Chhattisgarh through Sub- Respondent No.1. Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Respondents ) 1, Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Bilaspur, through its Registrar. w o Respondent Appellant 2. Rajeev Kshetrapai, S/o Shri Omprakash Kshetrapai, R/o Village Appellant Seepat Chowk, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tashil & District Bilaspur (CG). Respondent No.2 ‘ 3. Ghanshyam Das, S/o Ainamal. R/o Chakarbhatha Camp, Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG). -g, 4. Learned counse! for respondent No.2 submits that it was only agncultural land for away from the road and vicinity and the Colfector of Stamps has not valued the land as per rules, guidelines and norms. 5. As per order impugned, the Board of Revenue has reversed the order passed by the Collector of Stamps on the ground that the Collector of Stamps has not considered all circumstances for assessing of the land for the purpose of stamp duty. 6. In these circumstances, the Board of Revenue was under obligation to remit the case for providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and to pass the order afresh, but instead of remitting the case the Board of Revenue has opted the value made by present respondent No.2 which is not just and proper. 7'. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed. Case is remitted to the Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur for providing complete opportunity of hearing to the parties and to pass the order afresh. Parties are directed to remain present before the Collector of Stamps, Bilaspur on 12.1.2012. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge