T^- HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR PETmONERS ilL^'B^EWIIii.SSSS WRFT PETITION N0.1010 OF 2001 1. Kheer Sindhu, son of Bailochan Sahu, aged about 55 years. 2. Indro, son of Bailochan Sahu, aged about 45 years. 3. Chandro, son'of Bailochan Sahu, aged about 40 years. 4. Brindavan, son of BaHochan Sahu, aged about 37 years. A!l are resident of village Atunda, Tahsit Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1. Bhagirathi, son of Hari Singh, ag«l about 61 years, R/o village Banobhata, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG). 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Sub Divisional Officer, Saraipali. 3. The Collector, Mahasamund. 4. The Commissioner, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Articte 226/227 of the Con^itution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Presenl: Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the p^itioners. None Tor respondent No.1. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ r^pondents No.2,3 & 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12th day ofAugust, 2008) Petitioners claim that they are the ownere of the lands in Khasra Nos.38/14, 92 & 123, after having purchased the same from respondentNo.1. 2} The Sub Divisional Offfeer has taken suo motu proceedings under Section 1708 ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, ^959 (for short "the Code, 1959"). After holding the wiquiry, he had passed "?"^ /.:• ^ S ^SsfSS V3 "'<<». -z- ^ an order dated 27-4-1989 (Annexure-P/3) reverting back the lands in question to the respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had filed an appeat before the Coltector who was the First Appellate Authority then. The Appellate Authority had rejected the appeat filed by the petitioner by order dated 22-7-1^3 (Annexure- P/4) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had filed a revisim before the Revistonal Authority. The Revisional Authority has also rejected the revision filed by the petitioners for non-prosecution by order dated 23-5-1997 (Annexure-P/6). That is how fhe petitioners are before this Court in writ petition. 3) In my opinion, the petition so filed by the petitioners cannrt be entertained Tor the reason that, since the Rewsional Authority hos passed an ordered rejecting the revision petition for non-prosecution, the petitioners should have filed an applfeation for restoration of the said revision petition. But in the pr^ent case, the priitionere have rushed to this Court without exercising that option that was available to them. 4) In that view of the matter, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioners, however, are permitted to flle an appropriate application before the appropriate authority, requesting them to recall the eariier order and pass an order on merits of the case. If and when such application is filed by the petitioners, the concemed authority shall secure the record, consider the apptication of the | titioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Gowri Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge