ORDER :

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

1. All these petitions have been brought challenging the orders of the Revenue Board in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

2. Preliminary objections have been raised by the respondents on this ground, that these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi Vs. State of C.G., reported in AIR 2016 C.G. 17, in which, it has been held by the Single Bench of this Court that the Board of Revenue is not a civil Court, but is revenue authority established under the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”) therefore, the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not be maintainable.

3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(227) No. 84 of 2017 would submit, that the objection raised by the respondents side is misconceived. There is no such finding of the learned Judge in case of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (Supra) that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not be maintainable at all.

4. It is submitted that Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides that every High Court shall have judicial superintendence over all Courts and Tribunal. Article 235 of Constitution of India provides that the District Court and the Court-subordinate thereto shall be under the control of High Court with respect to the subjects mentioned in the provision. However, Article 227 of the Constitution of India very clearly lays down that the tribunal functioning in the State shall be under the judicial superintendence of the High Court, even if they are not under the administrative control of the High Court.

5. It is further submitted, that the Board of Revenue is also a Court. Section 3 of the Code, 1959, provides for Constitution of Board of Revenue and Section 31 of the Code, 1959, confers the status of Court to the Board of Revenue and Revenue Officers. This provision provides that Board or Revenue Officers while exercising power under these Code or any other enactment for the time being in force, to enquire into or to decide any question arising for determination between the State Government and any person or between the parties to any proceeding shall be a revenue Court.

6. It is submitted that in case of Dangalia & Ors. Vs. Deshraj & Ors., reported in 1973 M.P.L.J. -796, before M.P. High Court it was held, that the Revenue Courts are full fledged Court, which are governed by the special provision of the Code, 1959 and in absence of such provisions, they are to be governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is also submitted that in case of S.K. Sarkar Vs. Vinay Chandra Mishra, reported in AIR 1981 SC 723, the Supreme Court has held that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals. It was also held that the Revenue Board is a Court Sub-ordinate to the High Court within the contemplation of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha Vs. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. reported in 1967 AIR 1494, Umaji Keshao Meshram And Ors. vs Radhikabai, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1272, Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar & Ors. Vs. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shah & Ors. reported in (1993) Supp. (1) SCC 11, judgment of M.P. High Court in case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., reported in 2008 (1) M.P.L.J. 152, judgment of Supreme Court in Ashok K. Jha & Ors. Vs. Garden Silk Mills & Ors., reported in (2009) 10 SC 584, judgment of M.P. High Court in case of Om Prakash Vs. Surjan Singh, reported in 2004 R.N. 31, judgment of Supreme Court in case of Radhe Shyam & Ors. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, and on the judgment between the same parties reported in 2009 (5) SCC 616.

8. It is submitted tha