Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAMESH SINHA
Satyanarayan, S/o Lt. Ramprasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector Surguja – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. B.P.Sharma, Mr. M.L.Sakat, Mr. Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State as well as Mr. M.V.Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respective respondents.
2. In WA No. 418/2021, challenge is made to the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(227) No. 876/2012 by which the petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners challenging the order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, in Revenue Case No. 19/A-23/2009-10, has been dismissed.
3. In WA No. 626/2022, challenge is made to the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(227) No. 173/2021 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to record his name in the revenue records in pursuance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 03.02.2014 and provisions contained under Sections 108 to 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, has been rejected.
4. The Regis
The court ruled that appeals against orders made under Article 227 of the Constitution are not maintainable, emphasizing the jurisdictional distinction between Articles 226 and 227.
The power under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or miscarriage of justice.
Point of Law : The doctrine of precedent or Stare Decisis is a settled principle of law that a judgment, which has held the field for a long time, should not be unsettled. The doctrine of ' Stare Dec....
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing before passing orders affecting parties' rights, reinforcing the supervisory nature of Article 227 over judicial decisions.
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not permit re-evaluation of evidence unless there is a clear dereliction of duty or a perverse finding.
Writ under Article 226 is not maintainable against judicial orders in civil proceedings; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 remains available for such cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
