^ MIGH GOVRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art.227»No.3668 of 2809 Petitioners Non-appiicant No.1 (a) Non-apptlcant No.1(b) Non-applicant No.T(d) Non-applicant No.2(a) Non-applicant No.2(b) Non-applicant No.2(c) Non-applicant No.2(d) Non-appticant No.3 Respondents Appllcant Non-apDlicant No.Kc) 1. Saiikram S/o Late Gangaram 2. DharamSingh S/o Lde Gangaram ^ 3. DukalhinBalWtoLateGarigaram ^ 4. Duiara Bai Wo LateDayaram <• 5. Lahar Singh S/o Late Dayarsam ! ' 6. Laharu Singh S/o Late Dayaram ; 7. RajRumari D/o Lafe Dayaram' T 8. Mayaram S/o Puranik Gond » Ail R/o Vfllage Ghanadih, Tah- Bemetara, Dlstt-Dufg (C.G.) ,: ' Versus 1. Surendra Slngh S/o Madhosingh 2. Lllwantinbai D/oLate (^ngaram Non-appliGant No.4(a) 3. Geetabai VW6 Late Gayaram i Non-apDlicant No.4(M 4. Firantaram D/o Late Gayaram ; Non-appficant No.4fc) 5. Samaylal D/o Late Gayaram _s Non-applicant No.4(tf) 6. Shyamlal D/o Late Gayaram ; Non-applfcant No.4?e^ 7. Nlrauram D/o Late Gayaram Non-applfcant No.4(ft 8. Kutapabai D/o Late Gayaram Non-apDiicant No.4{a) 9. Milapabai D/o Late Gayaram All R/o Viltage Ghanadih, Tah.- Bemetara, Distt.Durg (C.G.) A< (Writ Petition under Articie 227 ofthe Constltution of India) Mr.K.Kalamkar, counsef forthe petitioners. Mr.P.P.Sahu, counset for respohdent No.1 . Mr.Basant Dewangan.counsel for respondents No.2 to 7. None present for respondents No.8 & 9. •lllillilj .t.iFtini;'!^? flf^3^ "^i. -2. ^ ilHHHW tTlT I".;.; 2. 3. (SB: Hon'bte Mr. T,P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (ORAL» (17-8-2011) By this writ petition under Articte 227 of the CCTistltutlon of India the petitioners have chattenged the legality & propriety of the onler d 27.12.2008 (Annexure P/1) f^ssed by the Board of Revenue, Btespur in Revision Revenue Case No.R.N.^)5/R/A-23/746/20C^, quashlng the order dated 6.2.91 passed by the Sub Divislonal OffKser, Benwtara; whereby the Sub Dlvisional Officer, Bemetara has cBrected to return the land to the petitioners under Sectlon 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code'), whteh has been afflrmedby the Additional Collector, Durgvtde orderdated 21.1.1^2 anelAddttionsd Commissioner, Raipur vlde order dated 12.1.1994 and afflrming the earlier order dated 14.10.1982 pa^ed by the Sub DMsional Offleer, Bemetara, whereby the Sub Dwisional Offlcer has tield that Section 170-B of the Code was not appiicable. 1 have peru^d the order impuyied smd copi^ @f cther orcters. As per order impugned and copies of other ord»s,the Sub Divjsional Offlcer has passed the order of return of possession against respondent No.1 Surendra Slngh under Section 170-B of the Code which wa® affirmed by the Additlonal Collector, Durg in appeal and the Additional Commissioner, Raipur in revision, therefore, second rewsion before Itie Board of Revenue or before any other authority was not maintainabte In accordance with Section 50 (1) (I) (c) of the Code which reads as follows:- "(i) no application for revislon shall be entertained- ', (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) against an order passed in reviston by the Commissioner or the Settlement Commisstoner in respect of ea^s under S.170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the BcKu-d onitsownmotion;............" ' ;)" 1t'.ti!; !F3 '•>';Ii•;!"?t:5:n7!.?^g?!®SSSS$SS^ s- ^ ^•^••" ^ I' <^ 3 4. Board of Revenue was not competent to tear and declde the reviston against the order passed by &ie Additional Commissloner in reviaon. Order passed by the Board of Revenue is of nuiiity and lidile to be seS. aside. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is altow^l. Order dated 27.12.a)(» (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Revision Revenue Case No.R.N./05/R/A-23/7<»/2(X)6 is herel^ set aside. However, respondent No.1 is at Bberly to avail remedy available under the law. No order as to eosts. > a J.. Sd/- T.P. Sharraa Judge :'i!!llt;--r.in !:1it5!ni'!:aE?'~:Kl?-K£^