)3 o PETITIONER: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.581 of 2010 Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. a company duly incorporation underthe relevant provisions of thelndian Companies Act, 1956, through its Chief Finance Officer (CFO) Shri Suneel Gujarati, son of Shri Gopaldas Gujarati, registered & head office at 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 400 034 (MS) through its Autliorized Signatory ShriNimish SunilAgarwal, son of Shri SunilAgarwal, resident of 1/45 Motilal Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai District Durg (CG) RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. Hiroo Pachkod, son of Late Rajaram Pachkod, aged about 69 years, resident of Tikrapara, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) 1A. Rajendra, son of Late Rajaram, aged about 45 years. 1B. Smt. Sushila, widow of Late Hiralal, aged about 80 years. 1C. Smt. Triveni, wife of Shri Shambu, aged about 46 years. 1D. Smt. Ganga, wife of Late Bharat, aged about 50 years. 1E. Smt. Jamuna, wife of Shri Sukhu, aged about 52 years, All through respondent No.1. (respondent Nos.lA to 1E were not parties before the Board but since their names have been recorded along with respondent No.1 in land records in compliance of the order of the Board of Revenue, therefore, they have been made parties to the present petition, as a matter of abundant caution) 2. 3. 4. M.P. Aluminum Industries, through Shri Santosh, Govind, Prembai, son of Shri Kriparam Sahu, resident of Baijnathpara, Raipur Tehsil and District Raipur (CG) < •• --• ;••:..- Lateluram, son of Shri Sarha Sonkar, aged about 80 years resident of Lakhe Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur(CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through Additional Collector, Raipur, the "Kas ^^^"-'-•^^s^^ \y 5. The Additional Tehsildar, Raipur. (Respondent Nos. 4& 5 being the State authorities have been made parties to the petition as the proper parties) {Petition under Article 226/227 of (he Constitution of India} Present Mr. B.P. Sharma, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. A.N. Bhakta, counsel for respondentsNo.1 to 1E. None present for respondents N0.2 & 3. No representation ismade. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No.4 & 5. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (1-11-2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety ofthe order dated 23-4-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court Raipur in Revenue Revision Case No.R.N./14/R/B-121/90/2010 whereby the Board of Revenue has directed for mutation of the names of respondent No.1 herein and LRs of Rajaram. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits thatat present, land has been recorded in the name of the petitioner herein who has purchased the land and without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Board of Revenue has passed such orderwhich is not sustainable under the law. Learnea counsel further submits that the petitioner has not committed forgery, inter alia, other respondents have •^ concealed the truth and committed forgery. 3. In exercise of such jurisdiction, the matter cannot be investigated upon, but it appears that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner before passing such order. However, the petitioner has not filed any application for revoke beforethe Board ofRevenue. 4. Consequently, with the observation that the petitioner may apply for review ofthe order dated 23-4-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court Raipur in Revenue Revision Case No.R.N./14/R/B-121/90/2010, before the Board of Revenueor may take appropriate step before the civil;coutt, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 5. All interimapplications also stand disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge