"3 C^- s'-f^^ (.s. 4^ td-^ SETHE HON'BLE HIGH CQUKT QF ehlHATnSGAgH AT BILASPUg flS.gJ ffiRiaLEEEfflQIM t£i1^©.2-81^-/2B67 PETIT:IQNEg§ 1. (^^y ^.s/^^- ?^'^'^J^::~"" '^^ Kamchanelra Wasnifc, ageel abQut 56 years, son of Shiyajj Wasnik, Sanjay Kumar Wasnifc, age.el aBout 43 years, son of Shri Shivaji Wasnik dre resielent of village Ghedari P.H. No. 87, R.I.Cirele Mahasamund Tahsil and District Mahasamunel (C©) VEgsys g.ESP©ND:ENTS ^^^1--8"'^^^ ^^^fS^. r'tfl^-<y'^''% ff-t'w ^. 1. BahyrSinghson ofManoclhi Kenwat, Presielent Nishad Samaj, resident bf village QhQdari, R.H.N. 87, I.I.Cirde Mahasamunel, Teihsil and Distriet Mahasamunel (C.©.) 2.^. The Tatisildar, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamuhct (£:.G.) 3.?,. Sub Divisibnal Qffieer (gev.) 4. s s- 5. Mahasamund, Mahasamund (C.G.) The Cslleetor, Mahdsamunel (C.G.) The Chhdtfisgarh Behch Distt. Distriet of Bilaspur, fhrbugh - its Chairman. .&" LUE:~-^^-*—*^'*fimm'Tr"ii 11 *"a'^» PETITIOIM UNDEg AgTlClE 2270ETHE CONSTITUTIOIM OF INDIA iineile Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant aw'; Ifl Ramchandra Wasnik and another versus iahur Sinah and others Postfor a^-02-2010 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra versus Ramchandra Wasnik and another iahur Singh and others Present: Shri Saif Mian, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Vinay Pandey, counsel for the petitioners. ihri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsei for respondent No.1. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lav/yer for the State/respondents No.2 to Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indja ^ (Passed on 3^-February, 2010) Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioners hereln have assailed the legallty, valldity and propriefy of the order dated 21-3-2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Board of Revenue, Clrcuit Court, Raipur rejecting the petltioners' revision petition under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Ravenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Code, 1959'). ^ 2. Brief fact-s, givlng rise to the dispute between the parties, are that the petitioners as well as Bahur Singh moved applications before the Tahsildar, Mahasamund for removal of encroachment and delivery of possesslon with respect to land bearing KJiasra No.323/3 area 2,7 Sq.Ft. The app'ication v/as allowed in favour offhe petitioners by the ii- dated 26-3-2001 'idi '.•:'?S".:w;:-^'^f'^s^SSSss -2-- (Annexure P-1). Appea! preferred by respondent No.1 Bahur Singh was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund vide order dated 5-3-2002. Further appeal preferred by respondent No.1 Bahur Singh was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur vide order dated 29-10-2002. 3. Petitioner No.1, thereafter, moved an apptication under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 for recovery of possession, which was rejected by the Tahsildar, Mahasamund on 19-5-2003 (Annexure P-4) on the ground thaf on the disputed spot, a community hall of Nishad Sama] is constructed together with a boundary wall, therefore, the provisions of Section 250 of the Code, 1959 are not attracted. Petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Re'/enue}, Mahasamund, which was decided on 18-11-2005 (Annexure P-5). The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) allowed the appea! only fo the extent of 900 Sq.Ft. of land. Petitioner No.1 Ramchandra Wasnik as well as petitioner No.2 Sanjay Kumar Wasnik preferred second appeal before the Collector, Mahasamund challenging the order passed by the Sub- Divisiona! Officer (Revenue) on 18-11-2005. The Collector, Mahasamund, vide orderdated 17-11-2006 (Annexure P-6), dismissed fhe appeal after recording a finding that the petitioners are not in possession of land bearing Khasra No.323/3 and that the demarcation report does not support the contenfion of the petitioners. The Collector also found that since the iease-deed, on the basis of which the petitioners are ciaiming titte, has ceases to be operative for the breach commjtted by the petitloners of the condltions of the lease, the land is vested in the Sfate Government. •T" &D s. 4. The order passed by the Collector on 17-11-2006 was the subject matter of revision before the Board of Revenue, which too has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21-3-2007 (Annexure -7). On perusa! of the various orders passed by the revenue iuthorities, it appears that there is serious dispute about continuance of the lease, possession of the petitioners over the !; for which lease was granted, the nature of the land and its position fhp ^nnf ^frk ».! CW i.^^/'S^8. Iw'li'^. tuse it has also been fou reyeni that a community ha" of Nishad Samaj has also been constructed on the disputed land, therefore, this Court is of the oplnion that all such disputed questlons of tit!e and facts cannot be gone into in this petition under Articie 227 of the ConsSitution of India. The petitioners, may, if they so desire, prefer a properly constituted civil sult before the j'urisdictionai civil C-ourt to claim all such reliefs admissible to then under the law. !t is made de.ar that in the event any such suit is filed, the same shall be dec'ded on its ovvn merits without beina influenced by the dismissal of this Constitution of India. e 227 of the 6. The present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No ordes UUSIS. ptasttan ,rtA6e sd;Lat^iswa ,t^ut jud^ CScp^!