IN THE mpH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Petitioner: Respondents: 10 .^\.^^ ..^!^? T^^; ^<^' WritPetitionNo. [oC-^ of 2005 .' State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada District Dantewada (CG) Versus > 1,. Chami-u ^/o Boti, by Caste Telanga, R/o 'illage Tihoolpad, Tahsil and District| ^•ybantewada (CG) Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur(CG) / WRIT ,PETITIQN_ UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF Ttffi CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE. WRIT(S}, DIRECTIONS ETC. XI-HC-78 ^Wv^\WW vi-OTi ^iqitt^, u>til'<+<td, (slrtK-tyt ^ ...w.p.^?.....^^£..lo$; sn^i'pTR'ii* ciairsil^CTBWp 3T^?T q^P ('jcll'jel^) W^200 ?^iT<R'tiRc) sn^si 16-9-2003 correciness cdiinsel Shri U.N.S. &eo with Advocates for the State/petit^ Shri B.P. Sharnw, ceunsel 8y this writ petition^ legality, propriet^ and passed by the Board of ftevenu^ (Annexure-P/1) ond the order 4 of Revenue in case No.02-A/63l I have heard teamed Qrders under challenge. The order under challcsn^e the Board of Revenue in re^ perusat of whole order shows form of judgment in appeal was required to review its ea^ appeal under Section 44 of 1989, Further perusal of tte an order as envisaged under been considered and wH'hout has been passed as an appelfcjt-e fMI*dpr in.'rtic? ^vfio^lo.w. iloner. for respondent No.l. Stoite/pelitiwier has questiemed the of the orders dated 13-1-2004 in review case No.l/A-63/2003-2004 jlated 29-1i0-2004 passed by the Bsard 11/2003-2004 (Annexure-P/2). for -the parties and perused •the <ni<<in<?ltll*lc)T^fls'cl xfuti^ix ^aiRli SK^s Shri Yastywant Sin9h Thakur, 6ovt. wh^reas darted 13-1-20(14 has been possed by tiew case No.l/A-63/2003-2004, but ^hat -this order has b^m passed in the i, by this erder the Revenue Board 1-ljer order dated lfi-6-2003 passed in fne Chhnttisgarh Lnnd tevenue Code, df^ar rfiows that principle for review of Prder 47 Rule 1 of the €J*.C.has not ^onsiderhig those provisions this order 1-e Court-. Therefope, thia order is no 1 XI-HC-78 y-OT) -yiqicxi, t!>lfl<(1<l<», RriK-iy'i *tmv>l^W 3TI^?T(R!p (ijc|fj6|<g) ^200 3II^?TwR-<i<»i ?ran3n^?r(CTte irve g^irsR^fteTsn^?! -^- <pi«fn<I1i*ii*inT^'fe'<l •(Rf'(^l'( ^art^Taii^CT Accordingly, orsjBr dated^ 13-1-2004 pa^ed by •rh& Board of Revenue in Review Case No.l/AI-63/2003-2004 <md the order dated s^ 29-10-2004 passed by the poard of ftevenue in case No.(^- A/63/2003-2004 ure quashed. ^/ithout <a>nsidering the' merit of the » case, the matter is sent bc(ck to the Board of Revenue to cfecide -\ 1 review case No.l/A-63/2003-S(|)04 and case No.02-A/63/2003-2004 on its own merits, in a<:cordan<te with law. Since the mathers have beconie otd, it is expected thaf the Board will decide -the sforesmd cases as early as possible witl^in a period of 4 menths from today, after giving opporhinity to both^ the parties. Parties are directed to aj>pear before the Board of ftevenue en 30th Sep-tember 2005. The writ petition is di^ojsed of t»cording)y. Partfes are entitled for c^rtified copy of this order. Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo judge