g9“ V/ C ifé‘ TEIE HIG-E {EQURT CF SEEIéfTiSGARi-I $1 EEL&S?HR W.P.No. '14)! {2004 / PETITIONER : .1. SmtJfeena Tiwari, ‘n W} a Shri Vijay Kumax T§wari, Agad about 34 yaarS. , 2. Vijay Kumar Tiwari, 3’ Sf a Ageil aEwui 44 yearg. Both E} a Vitfnya Nagar, Bilagpur (C.G.§ i Akraaus — x : 1. Bearc‘i 9f Ravsnue, Chhatti$ga3h Thrcmgh its Membar Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Sub Divisional O cer (Revenue), Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Tahgildan Bilaapur (C.G.). 4. Shri Shaukat AH, Sf o Shri Jiwaji Bhai, R! 0 Khaparganj, Eilaspur (C.G.). RESFOHEEET$ WIT ?ETITIOI€ UEDER ARTIGLE 224223¥%F THE COK$TITUIOE a? IE§1A FQR E$STL§E€2E $F $ $II§T$BLE WREE, G£§EE {9% EEEQE‘EQIQ ‘EQ QQ JUs‘I‘IGE IX! TEE MATTER. Vlr’ 28 06 2004 , I Shrl Rajeev Shnvastalva counsel for the petltionem~ 8hr} Sdtlsh Gupta, Dy. Govt. Adv. for respond-emf NO 1 to 3 Shrl M D Shauna c Tins o-xdcr shall govc n the disposal of the petitiang c.1409/2004 between Sm?” [noth‘er Vs. Board of Reveuwg Writ Pctitioh Namiogmgzw "ain Vs unse for respondant NeA, iiély »Wrii ;;%“stition m$hWari Chiaiiiirve‘di &' tuSgdrh {i7 others, ; between 5mm} Chand Board Lef Revciz'xv; Chhattmgarh as others, Wmt petltlon No 1412;3Mm" rd of Revenue Chhattls+gg¢x£¢ (, Writ D'utmn No 1411/2004 between .3 Board of Reva-1.1m, Chhattlsgaxh & others an Wnt Petltlon No 1545 26VH’ others Vs. Board of Revenue, m J oo th, a s anot er Vs V‘betwfeen .Smt. Jyotx Dun-t Chhettfsgarh 85 others, ce all these wr1t petltmne ‘rclatc to tht. eamc Issue and Impugn the order dated 23.03.2004 passed the Board of Chhattisgarh, Biiaspur th refore, they are being disposee of by this common. order. In all these writ pet tions return has already been filed on behalf of respond nt No 4 The mrcumstances 1 adtng to flhng of all these wru pet1tlons are that respo dent No 4 herem moved am Slider, Bilaspur muier hectxon Revenue ‘ XI-HC~22 _/" r .‘,* forte, ,w__¥ g _ between Alok kumar Vs - Veena ‘ Tlwaxt a: applicatlor bet ,re the Te l f Ra a b WW. W,WW 3m m mgrwmotx “1 wwwximam d 1» \ z ésmm k 9‘50 of the Land Revenue dodc, 1‘954‘rcqucsting therein that he 15 Bhuswamx 01" theiland bearing Khawre No 724 ’ 1 area O 24‘ acres s tuatcd at Vdlagc Tnra «Baarh Nagar) and the possessnon of thelpetltloners hcrcm ove d, therefore, tug powcssion ‘ of the same may be given to him. The TehSildar after ‘ consideringxtht arguments f the parties vidé ordcr~date<i 09 07 2001 rej‘ctcd the'aylicaxion by holeiimr thvt *Em ' apphcainon 1s not mamtam ale under Sccnon 250 9f i135 - Code. Bang a ed by the order of the Tehmma‘ crmn p ferred an appeai before tha g) r regpondanf No‘ Sub Divisibnai Officef, Bil syur who also after hcmmg thc parties ‘dismiss‘cd appeal vidc order dated 09.03.2003 and held that in order to seek relief under Section 250 of the Co appliéant who is~sccking d . the land in disyute, the de arcation of the land must be it shall also be clear that on which date the appli was dispossessed from the land in disputeand since applicant could not be able to prove all these facts, th refore, the applicant was not entitled for any relief ami ppeal was dismissed. Again aggrieved by the order of S b Divisional Officer, Bilaspur respondent No.4 had pref rred a second appeal before 'the Board of Revenue Chha tisgarh, Bilaspur, which was registered as Revenue Apal, ,No.537]A—70f2002~& , it is necessary that the ief must be the Bhuswami of XLHC~22 established undisputedly r o ‘ , the said land are unauth e v ‘ 4 l c t d e pe 1 XI—HC—22 XI-HC—22