[C—78 ® 3^' ^l^t^, ^Tf1yi!^, ^01'f-iy 'W^T .^X.:..L...^S'tM.. ^I^T-^^F (^i^c^) -^ 1 ^i^n^r^it^ I i^?^^ta3i3^l -^ri^ih'w^ff ^fe^ TtN^R .•^3^fOT^^ PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: -Versu^ 1. 2. 3. (Writ Petition under Artid Sinale Bench: 23-1-2008:- Shri Ravish Verma, counsel Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. M^ Heard. The petitioner has preferrec Constitution of India questioning dated 18th May, 2007 passed by revision No.4/B-121/2005-06 wher the revision filed by the petjtion| Additional Collector, Raigarh date^ No.85/B-121/2004-05, whereby lea| Shankar Das, S/o Mahagu Das Mahant, aged about 40 years, R/o Kafarmar, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) Jotram, S/o Ghasiram Chauhan, aged about 58 years, R/o Kafarmar, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) Board of Revenue, Bilaspur (C.G.) |e 227 of the Constitution of India) Honlile Mr. Justice L.C. Bhadoo ror the petitioner. ocate for the State. this writ petition under Article 227 of the |the legality and correctness of the order the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, in |by learnect Revenue Board has dismissed ^r herein against the appellate order of 28-11-2005 passed jn Revenue Appeal ^ned Additional Collector while allowing the ^^) :C—78 "'%„. "^^^ ^I^i^IT^TF 3^[ -Mi^l^, ^>rTwi(S, 'f^^l-yy •qro?w .M^a..M.^/^ 3i?^T ^^ ( w^ir ^i^ferih ^praf'^,'fe^ if^$R ^ati^^^r alleg^tion herejn appeal set aside the orderpassecj No.1 Jotram was ordered to be ref Necessary facts for the dis| No.1 herein is working as Kotwa^ lodged a complaint against respo| whereas, he has given said land of Rs.1200/-. Further allegation of sale of cattle and another he is not doing Govemment work| as Jotram, respondent No.1, has been reproduced in detail Perusal of the evidence of the witl as allegation regarding sale of substance of the evidence of e1 engaged in the sale of cattle. Thej No.1 was dealing in the sate of cat As far as question of givir Singh on lease is concemed, denied that there js no record whi given to him on Jease. Village S she is Sarpanch for the last10 y< Kotwar. There is no compiaint a$ never signed the documents regar has stated that he is not doing the As far as question of mentioned in the order of Addition; by Tehsildar and SDO whereby respondent jnoved. Isosal of this writ petition are that respondent of Village Kafarmar. The petitioner herein ident that he is not cuttivating Kotwari land 4n lease to one Phool Singh jn consideration v^as that Kotwar Jotram is doing the business i, as leveled by Halka Patwari, was that Both the parties i.e. Shankar Das as well examined their witnesses. Their evidence |>y Tehsildar in his order dated 6-7-20(M. tiesses of both the parties shows that as far |attle by respondent Kotwar is concerned, ^ery witness was that his son Kiritram is |'e is not an iota of evidence that respondent tle. |g Government Kotwari land to one Phool Singh has been examined and he has \^h estabtishes that the land in question was i^rpanch Shakuntala Rathia has stated that ^ars. Jotram is doing Government work as lainst him. She has further stated that she ijding removal of Jotram from the post. She t>usiness of sale of cattle. com|j>laint of PatMari is concemed, it has been |il Collector and Revenue Board that Patwari Phbol ^^ ^ -^ %. "~'- '®-^C—78 '%. ^<^ '^^-,.-y Wi Ti^aiI^I^^T^ Barve 3^T ^|Aji0^, ^•H^Ko, ?s|<7i>ray 'W^T s^fl-^' ^J ^TF/^ ^••^ 31T^TT^% (^cjf^?^) ^^iT^R^^e^ ^rafel^h 'RFRTf '^.'fe^ ^N^R ^^fOT^^r has not been examined by Teh^ldar him against the respondent N^>. namely Shakuntala Rathia hasj Kotwar and he is performing his ^ In view of the above, ther^ the charge against the responde|it has rightly exonerated the resp{?r charge of misconduct was mad^ been upheld by Revenue Board record to show that Additional perverse order or contrary to material to show that both the such, there is no material to Collector has exceeded the jurisdictional error in this matter. 1 do not find any substarfce dismissed and it js hereby dismisjsed t^e to substantiate the allegations leveled by ).1. On the other hand, Village Sarpanch stated that there is no complaint against luties. is no cogent and clear evidence establishjng No.1 herein, therefore, Additional Collector >{?ndent No.1 of the charge and held that no out against the respondent No.1, same has jn its revjsional order. There is no materjal on (poltector or Revenue Board has passed any material available on record. There is no (Courts have exceeded theirjurisdiction, as ^stabiish that Revenue Board or Additional j^risdiction vested in them. There is no in this writ petition, same is liable to be at the admission stage itself. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge