Aghnu Ram v. Through Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. -Z^ / 200^ PETITIONER ^ Aghnu Ram, S/o Sukhlal aged about 40 years, R/o Village Jaggannathpur, P.C. No. 2, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1 The State of Chhattisgarh ^ ^"' ^* -<^' ^••' Through Secretary Revenue Department, Raipur. : 2 The Collector, ^ Durg (C.G.)

The Tahsildar ^^ Balod Distt. Durg (C.G.) Puniya Bai W/o Pyare Ram Aged 50 years, By caste Teli, R/o Village Jaggannathpur, P.C. No. 2, Tahsil Balod, DistrictDurg(C.G.) .^"~ ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND/OR QUO WARRANTO AND/OR OTHER WRIT/ORDER/ DIRECTION IN THE SAME NATURE IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 24 OF 2004 PETITIONER Aghnu Ram Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench :Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :• Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER rOPEN COURT) (Passed on this 06th day of May, 2013)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.03.2003 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Tahsildar, Balod, District Durg in RevenueCase No. A-70 years 2002-2003.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that

petitioner has preferred a statutory appoal against this very order dated 29.03.2003 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 24.10.2003 (Annexure - R/1), dismissed the appeal. The petitioner, without disclosing the fact that the statutory appeal has been preferred and the same has been dismissed, has filed the instant petition, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Balod, which has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. There is no challenge to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In view of that, the. petition is not maintainable on the ground that firstly, the order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and secondly, petitioner has concealed the fact of taking the matter to the Statutory Appellate Forum and also the dismissal of the appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer.