HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETXTIOH 227 N0. 6678 OF- 2008 PBTITIONBRS 2. 3. VEIUSUS Jodhan S/o Bedram, Aged about 55 Resident of Graui Sonpuri, Talisil Saja District Durg (C.G.). Ishwar S/o Bedram Radheshyaoi S/o Bedraui, Both residents of Village Mosulgaadi, Tahsii Saja, District Durg (Chliattisgarh). Snit. Kaml^phwari, W/o Kuiubh Kashyap R/o Villa^e Dhangaon Thana Lohura, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG). Suit. Anusuiya Bai W/o Shri Hanu Vemia R/o Vffiage Dhaneli, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (Chliattisgarh). Snit. Dharmm Bai D/o Chatui Lodhi Chudamaai, S/o Chatur Lodhi Mukesh S/o Chatur Lodhi Respondents 3 to 5 are residents of Vfllage Sonpuri Talisil Saja District Dui^ (C.G.). Narayati, S/o Bedram. Chatur Singh, S/o Bedram R. No. 6 & 7 Are R/o Sonpuri, Tahsil Saja Distt. Durg (C.G.). Bhagwati, D/o Bedrani R/o Kaaharpuri, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (CUiatdsgarh). Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bitaspur (Chliattisgarh). ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 6. 7. INDIA. (SB :Hoa'Me Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present;-Shri Anurag Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P. P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5. None for the respondents No. 6 to 9. / (Fassedoa 23/11/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have chaUenged the legality aud propriety of the order dated 2/9/2008 passed by Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur [Circuit Court Raipur) ia case No. R.N./05/R/A- 6/684/2007 whereby Board of Revenue has quashed fhe order dated 28/11/2002 passed by Naib Talisildar, Saja in revenue case No. 2A/6 year 2002-2003, order dated 3/1/2003 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Saja in Appeal Case No. 14-A/6 year 2002-2003 aa.d order dated 30/8/2007 passed by Additional CoUector, Beinetara ia Appeal Case No. 45A/6 year 2004-2005 aad restored ftie order dated 7/5/ 1990 passed by Naib Tahsildar. 2. Shri Anurag Venna, Advocate for tlie petitioners & Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for fhe respondents No. 1 to 5 aic beard. 3. Copy of fhe order iinpugned and ofher docuinents perused. Naib Tahsildar has passed tbe order dated 7/5/1990 relating to uiutation and subsequentty during substance of first order Naib Tahsildar has passed the second oider 28/11^2002. In case ofaay fllegaUty or ground availablje for review Naib Tab.sfldar was under obligation to obtain. permission for rcview and pass the order in accordance with law but wifhout reviewing its own order it was not coinpetent to pass second order fherefore while reversing subsequent order aad upholding initial order dated 7/5/ 1990 Board of Revenue has not coiumitted any Ulegality requiring any uiterference ia exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be disiaissed and is hereby disniissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to ffle appropriate appUcation for review before such auftiority or to approach CivU Court. No .order as to costs. 4. Interiin appUcation stands disposed of. Sd'- T.^sbatwa l" 3udse y i 9