Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Babaji vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 March, 2022

Author: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Bench: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

                                        1


                                                                    NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        W.P.(C). No. 1538 of 2022

Babaji, S/o. Upendro Kolta, R/o. Village Lara, Tahsil Pusour, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
                                                            ---- Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.    State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretary, Department of
      Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2.    (A). Bijli, W/o. Late Venudhar,
      (B). Jagdish, S/o. Late Venudhar
      (C). Ayodhya S/o Late Venudhar
      No.2A to AC are R/o. Village Lara, Tahsil Pusour, District - Raigarh
      (C.G.)
3.    Commissioner Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
                                                        ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with, Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 29/03/2022

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel representing respondent No.1 and 3.

2. After considering on the submission and in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Ravishankar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors, reported in AIR 1973 MP 52, the question has been considered as to whether the second appeal lies under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue 2 Code, 1959 and also the question as to whether the power of revision under Section 50 of the Code can be invoked in exercise of order passed under Ceiling Act. Both the questions have been answered in affirmative. Hence, this being the position in law, the petitioner has the remedy available to file a revision against the impugned order, which has been passed by the respondent No.3. Hence, this petition is disposed off. The petitioner is granted liberty to prefer a revision, before the Board of Revenue within a time limit of 30 days and on filing of such revision petition, the Board of Revenue shall be obliged to hear the revision petition and take decision at the earliest within a time limit of six months.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram