@‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARI-I AT §ILASPUR. wan pmmou (227. No. 158512011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. ‘I‘.P.Shatma, J.) Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Jhanwar P.L., for the State/ respondents. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 1510712011) \ (pf Xi: 1. By thie petition under A11:icle 227 of the Consu'tuu'on of India peh'tioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 7/2/2011 passed by Addiu'onal Collector, Manendmgarh District Koriya (C.G.) in mvision case No. kt 05/A-6/2010v11 whereby Additional Collector, Manendmgarh District Koriya “(C.G.) in exercise of suo-motu revisional poWer has mvcrsed the order passed by Tahsildar relating to conecu'on of enuy in revenue record. Respondents have 1‘ made their appearance on the basis of advance copy furnished by the pen'doner to it. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has issued notice to the respondents in accordance with Rule 48 and 52 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 ( in short ‘the Rules 2007') and has not dismissed the petition summarily therefore respondents are under obligation to sub Tl its return supported by an a$davit and thereaher petition may be disposed of m , PETITIONER Durga Shanker Mishra, aged about 50 Non-Applicant yeaxs, S/o Shivdeen Mishra, R/o Village Janakpur, Tahsil Bharatpur, Distt. Koriya. Versus Resyondents 1. State of Chhaujsgarh thmugh its Secmtaxy, Revenue Daparuncnt, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Additional Collector, Manrndragarh, Distt. Koriya 3. Tahsildar, Bhax‘atpur, Distt. Koriya Leamed counsel far the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Union of lndia k 01's, Etc. Etc. v. Ml: Kundan Rice Mills Ltd.1 in which Apex Court has held that at the time of adjudicat‘mg an inten‘m matter categorical hding on merits by the High Court is not proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as held by this Court in the matter of Ptltr Balm v. ante of C.G. a otheua that second xevision under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Chhaltisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 is barred. . ,‘ learned counsel for the petiu'oner also submits that provisions of Rule 5 of the \ f‘Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Secu‘on 50 of the \ Chhatu'sgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 . ( in short ‘the Oode') mlau'ng to revisional power am same and identical. Therefore as per law declared by this Court in the matter of Prltram Sahn (Supra) and Section 50 of the Code second revision is not barred. Being asked learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no alternate remedy of appeal or revision is available to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents opposed the peh‘u'on. In the present petition no notice has been issued to the respondents in terms of Rules 48 or 52 of the Rules 2007. Present respondents have made their .~. appearance on the basis of advance copy furnished by the petih'oner to them. They have made appearance on 20/6/2011 and has prayed time for nling reply. Trial Court has not proceeded under Rule 48 or 52 of the Rules—2007. This is petition under Arn'cle 227 of the Constitution of India relating to order passed by Addin‘onal Collector Manendragarh in exercise of suo-motu revm'ional power. order impugned and provisions of aforesaid law perused. 10. Section 5 of the Chhattjsgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 axe not identical. As held in case of ’ zoos Am scw 7626 _ __ _____¥2-‘ \2005 (2) co. Ls. 49 v ,3/ @D Union of India 5 0n, Eta. Etc. {Supra}. At the time of adjudicau'ng an inte ' matter deciding the case finally was not pmper. 11. in the present case tn'al Court has not issued notice under Rules 48 or 52 of the Rules, 2007 and this is pmliminaxy stage, respondents are made their appearance on the basis of advance copy furnished by the peu'n'oner. Section 50 of the Chhatu'sgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 reads as follows:- 50. Revision-(1) 7m Board or the {Settlement Commissioner or the Colleaor or the Settlement Opioer} may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any partyfor the purpose of satisfying itseWhimsey as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Q$oer subordinate to it/ him callfor, and examine the record ofany ease pending before, or disposed of by sud: 0pm and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinhsjit- Provided that- (i) no applicationfor revision shalt be entertained- (a) agm‘nst an order appealable under this Code; (b) against an order of the settlement Commissioner under sedion 21 0; (c) against an order passed in revision by the settlement commissioner in respect of cases under S. 1703, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion (ii) no such application shall be entertained untess X, presented within siuy days to the settlement comrms'sioner or the Collector or the Settlement weer as the mse may be, or within ninety days to the Board of Revenaefmm the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid time requisite for obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded (iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. \\\\ \\ p (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sedion (1)- (t) when proceeding in resped'g any «ma have been commenced by the Bowd under subsedion (I) no action shall be taken by the settlement Commissioner or the Colledor or the Settlement OW in respea thereof. (ii) Where proceedings in respect of any case hme been commenced by the Settlement Commissioner under sub sedion (1) no action shall be taken by the Colleaor or the Settlement Otter in respect thereot (iii) where proceeding in respect of any sudt mse have been commenced by the Settlement Commissioner, Colleaor or settlement O$cer under sub'sedion (1) the Board may either rejtuinfrom taking any action under this section in resped of such case until the final disposal of such proceedings by the settlement commissioner or the Collector or the settlement oy‘icer, as the case may be, or may withdraw such proceedings andpass such order as it may deemjit. Omitted by C.G. ACT No. 1 1 Qf2003, w.e.f. 23/ 1 1/2002, (iv) Where proceeding in respea of any such case have been commenced by tlw Colledor or the Settlement Wcer under sub-sedion (1) the Settlement Commissioner may either refrain Mn taking any aaion under this sedion in respect of such case until the final w'sposal ofsuch proceedings by the Colledor or the settlement Qm‘cer, as the mse may be, or may withdraw such proceedin$ and pass sud: order as it may deemji't. Won-For the purpose of this seaion all Revenue wears shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board]. 12. As per Section 50 (1) (i) (c) of the Code second revision against the order passed in mvision by the Commissioner or Settlement Commissioner in mspcct of Section 170B & (c) of the Code is barred. Alternate exhaustive mmedy of revism'n is available to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Code but instead of tah’ng recourse of such exhaustive remedy available under the law present petitioner has med this petition. Consequently, considering the availability of alternate r}; mmedy, petition med under Am‘cle 227 of the Constitution of India is, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismisscd with cost of Rs. 3,000/— payable to the opposiic parity within 15 days mm today befom the Revenue Court. - «a 7 No otderastocosts. W ” Sd/— T.P. Sharma Judge