This judgment concerns a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Board of Revenue order rejecting a revision regarding property mutation. The Court dismissed the petition at the threshold, noting that a learned counsel appeared neither for the petitioner nor the respondent, failing to consider proper legal aspects.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (2S7) N0.4891 OF 2008
PETITIQNERS/ 1. PitamberKodwanJ,S/oGullima!Kodwani NON-APPLICANTS
RESPONDENTS/ 1. DhanrajKodwani.S/oGullimat APPUCANTS
QWrit petitibn under Article227 of the Constitution of India)
Single Bench : Hon'ble ShriSatish K.Agnihotn, J,
Present: ShriVimlesh Bajpai, Gounselforthepetitionere.
ORALORDER (Passsdbn this 5tndayOfSeptember, 2008)
i['i--S-
il:^
Being aggrieved by theorderdatod 25-7-2008 ^nnexure-P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, ChhatUsgarh, Biiaspur (Circyit Gourt at Raipur), inRevisk)ncaseNo.RN/14/A-200)/556/2007wherebytftelearned Board of Revenue rejected the revision, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
:iiliE ^ > ~::::;,
:iill
E^i^ E.
^.
am3 agair^ thatthe^^prtei^iM'efeT^ Rew&nue, which was^^also rqeeted fey impugned order dated 25-7-2008 without aCTM^atir^^lfte fac^MKl the^case in ils true perspectlve. l^m^ eoun^^bttiits^^ th^ r^porKients^ h new^ ground; after^ren^R^ ^ case^^^^^w^ appli<^onm^their^malapRlicatiGin,whichis^^i^ ' - • l':l :::," '. ff/e(^}aw^ .; ' ,'f 1' '- ;•,.
i^
S) ThisGOUrtine)®raseofitsisu^rwsofyjuri^cB<^urKier^^ oftheCons^tionoftlndiashoyiclBreffainjt^^^)^^ order passed bythefic^rt^elc^eii^ptm Hl^alit^ irregulan^wjunsdK^onaliMgristerit^ recerd.whichisnotintKepreseritcase,;
^Sd/-- ... . Satish^K^Agmhotri .fudge^''''.;:,:'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Bench should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the impugned revision order and legal position.
Pitamber Kodwai, S/o Gullimal Kodwani
Ky. Pamieshwari Devi, D/o Gullimal Kodwani
Smt. Radha, W/o Govindram
Smt. Maya Devi, W/o Balchand
Smt. Hari Devi, W/o Ashok Kriplani
Dhanraj Kodwani, S/o Gullimat
Satish K.Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
