'i:;\ :<at!tt!nn^r EIB i~^i.if».i<u»l»^i HiOH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARK AT BiLASPUR WrltPM!tJQn|Mo,451.8_OT20yQ Mohan prasad, S/o Late Shrs Kathiu, aged about 68 years, By Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Viiiage-Parsha, Tahsi'-Malkharod, Dlstt-Janiglr Champa C.G. Versus ResDoncfersts Member of Revenus Board, Gwalior. (IIBl 'ha Commissioner, Biiaspur Upper Coiiector, Janjgir. 4. Shankarlai, 3/o Thura Qond aiias Sadhram Gond, agerf about 34 years, R/o Viiiage-Parsha, Tahsii-Malkharod, Distt.Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Cv'Vnt Petition under ArtlcSe 226 & 227 ofthe Constiiuiion of india) Mr.C.K.Keshanwani, counsei forthe petjtioner. None prsseni for respondent No.l . Mr.Vjnod Tekam, Pane! Lawyerfor rsspondsnis No.2 and 3/State. nnr.Sunii Sahu, cpunsel for respondsnt No.4. (SB: Hon'bie W,r. T.P. Sharma, j.) ORDER n 9-9-2011) iy this wrii petitlon under Artic!®225/227 of ihe Consfitutson of india the petitioner has chai!e",ged the legaiity & propristy of ihe order datsd 21.6.2000 psssed bythe Board of Revenue, Fvladhya Pradesh, Gwaiior in Case No.R-10S4-iv72000, affirming the order dated 25.5.2000 sd by the the Additlonsl Commissioner, Bsiaspur Divisson, Biiaspur in Case No.42-A/23/99-2000, affirming the order daied 31.3.2000 passed by the Additional Coiiector, Janjgir Champa in Appeal Revenus Case No.4;'A-23,;9S-99, whereby S'ne Addiiiona! Coiiector, Janjgir Champa has reversed fhe orcier a'ated 24.8.98 passed by the ©ubDsvisionai Officer, Sate! in Revenue Cass No.323-123/S7-98 and directed to reiur", of posssssion of respondent No.4. L- -^ 2. initlsiiy the Sub Dtvisionai Officgr, Saki! has dismissed the appjication Sled OR behaif of respondant No.4 under Section 170B of ihe Chhattisgarh Land Revenus Cods, 1959 (in short 'Code'), which was chaliengsd before the Additionai Coilsctor and vids order datsd \^ I •^lf.I&.l/ 2000 the Additionai CoSiector has reversed the order passed b; l^»<rf\<? t^ i/^n r/\ fhe Sub Divisior.ai Officer and directed to reiurn of Dossession to rsspondent No.4. 3. i have heard iearned counsei for the parties, psrused the ordsr impugned and other orders passed bythe revsnue authorities. 4. Learned counsei for the petitio.-ier submits that as per the order of the Additionai Coliector, Janjgir Champa, theSub Divisional Offlcer has not irsqulred the matter in accordance with iaw and procedure and wlthout sny inquiry hs has dismissed the appHcatlon fried on bshalf of respondent No.4. in these circumstances, ths Additionai Coiisctor was under obiigstion to remand the case for detaii inqii!"/ or to inquirs into maiter by itseif, but Instead of remandjng or inquiring the mattsr the Addltionai Collector has passed ihe order and thsreby committed iiisgsiity, v.'hich has been affirmed by ihe Additional Commissione,'- and the Board of Revenue. 5. On ihe other hand, iearned counsei for rsspondent No.4 opposes the y'aTi'i'f/'LOTi ^y\i^. <?« !!s^L»vtti'<t ^•?f>^ I'S'^*^, &/<i/>It4'i/iB^''aE /^-/sii.i'ii<^+/<iF S^<»<* ytj^rfyUf r/M^/^fo-^'tt^ ^iidifciv^i j cai iu suMiiiSi.^ t>i icgi M i^ /=\^Uii)wiisiB v/^ii'i.i^&wi i E(23t i iyi Ei?y i <i?Vi-Ei SX.?vi ¥- ^r^'v&ir *ni.<'»c?c*/i(^ »^.A< <i'>i/\ Oa ti^ r^»n<*5/M%'»Si^^Fii^/^r iS vi<-it?i 1,/ta^O^w ik/y i,U^? OUL; i«;iVi5»i<«?i i(%E v^iiiii-risi, t,.«sSR,t.i> TTt.Si ^.S 6. Ground of reversai of the order passed by the Sub Divisionai Officer, Sakti reads as foiiows:- "MT'T *«|yi!?i<l 4 Sm^ 3IT^5T ^' ^TS iTrer t '?8<'rl|i-df eft-T SfRV'1 4 S4RT 170 ('S} ^ ¥Tqem A|jch|^^ •r|^1 ^l^. [i5|^i11&i ^' ^B^^! ''T^f K i tT1^rl "yi'yidii ^ ^r ^racr wf isrN ^reT T^Jrr t .^. ........ .fs^ - ff^< ^>» • . . '\ "<^ qR qW qR Treirt m^ ^ra^r ^IPT w?< qr?'i ^ ^i ^ s^ ^a^ ^' %T j g^iW 4 ^fT •»ft ^r? <|ft IT^ ii^uinj Rfg ^*ft ^ait 4 ^ST ^ i $*i'l!) •Sfgt -K^ ^ " "•°'• Vf i? ! 7, tt appears that as per findlng of ihe Additionai Coilector, the Sub Divisionai Officer has not inquirad the maiter. in ihese circumstancss, \ the only osstion was left io ths AcSditionai Coilector to remit the case for ; proper inquiry or to hoid inqutry by itseif, but without making arsy inquiry -3 - either by itseif or by through the Sub DivisioRai Officer, the Additiona! Coiiector was not competent to pass such order and by passlng such order ths Addiiional Coiiector has commltteci iiSsgaiiiy and has sxceeded the jurisdiction vested on !t. 8. Consequeniiy, ths writ petition is aiiowed. Order dated 31.3.2000 passed by the Additrona! Coiiector, Janjgir Champa and subsequent to the order of the Additionai Commissioner and ths Board of Revenue are hereby quashed. Case of remitted to the Court of Sub Divisionai Officer, Sakti for conducting inquiry and to pass ths order afresh. Partles are dirscted to remain present before the Sub Divisionai Ofncer, Sakt! on 20.10.2011 for further progress of the case. No order as to costs. — —•- T.P. Shartna Judge ^