^ HIGH COUjCTQPCHHATTISGAmiATBIL^lPim Writ Apueal No.324 of 2010 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS: Vioish Joy, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri K.N. Joy, R/o Adarsll Nagar, Thana Road Kwairiha, District Kabirdliam (Chhattlsgarh) Versus 1. 2. 3. 4, The Stete of Chhattisgarh, thiongfe its ^crctaxy, Revetxue Department, DKS Bhawan^ Raipur The Collector, Kawardha, Dtetrict Kabirdham (CG) Nayab Tahsildar (Nazul) Kawardha, District Kabwdham (CG) Sarv Adhikari a^id Karmachad Sangh tfaroiigh its Presideiit, Adarah Nagar, Kwacdha, District Kabixdham (CG) Prcsent: SIiri Akhilesh Kumar, couixsel for the appellaxit Shri Yashwaxrt Sm^i Thakur, Deputy Advocate Qerteral for fhe State, Dhdslon Bench: Hontble SlMrtDM^end^aM^luEaA Hoti*t>le Shrt R.N. ChandtalMBr. JJ. <I UJ) G M B N T (23-9-2010) The followingjudgment of the Court waa delivered ty D^hireiidn Mldiffa, J. 1, The appeUant's writ petition challenging tbe atiow cause nptice dated 22-7- 2010 (Annexure-P/8) with regard to caoceUation of lease issued by Naib Tehsildar (Nazul), Kawardha^ has been dismilssed by the impugned oxder. 2. The in^tant appeal has been preferred on the ground fhat notice has been issued under the influence of resporideait No,4 by respondent No,3< Respondent No.3 had no jiirisdiction to cancel the lea^^ gratited m favour of the appeUant. "'^ 1 ^^/- •^sy ^-o 3. From penisal of the impzigned order, it appears fhat the appeUaat was earlier senred witfa a aotice by fhe Munfcipal Couawfl for Bndertekmg construction over the disputed land wifhout perrafesioii of fhe Coiincil, 4. Leamed Single Jxidge dismissed the writ petition with aa observation fhat the petitioner/appellaxit did not respond to fhe notice ofAxinemxre-P/2 aiid without approaching the Court of Naib Tehsfldar (Naziil) wherem the tesue of graat of lease is pending directly approached the Court by fiKng writ petition, 5. From the order sheet dated 27-7-2010 of the Court of Naib Tehsildar (Na^ul), it is evident fhat the matter is pendmg before fhe Revexiue Co^irt where the appellaat has been directed to prodiice origmal lea^» (rf Itie dteputed property in his favour. 6. In view of fhe above, we are of the opinioB fhat no gro^ind is availatole to the appellajat agafc&st tfae order oflearned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is withoxit any subataiiee, fhe saixie deserves to be and is accordijEigly disixiissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Barve