l^^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTJSGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. PETIT10NERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.353 of 2001. 1. Parwati Bai w/o Ramlal by caste Bhaina (Adivasi) aged 40 (Forty) years. a Panch of Gram Panchayat at vdlage - Chhuiha, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur 2. Kektibai w/o Dhaniram by Caste Satnami aged 27 fTwenty seven) years, a Panch of Gram Panchayat Chhuiha, Tahsil - Bilaigarh 3. Hembai w/o Tularam Satnami aged 31 CThirty one) years, a Panch of Gram Panchayat Chhujha 4. Om Prakash S/o Puniram by caste Satnami agod 48 (Forty eight) years, a Panch of Gram Panchayat Chhuiha 5. Dharamsingh aged 42 years s/o Ramctas Bhaina (Adivasi), a Panch of Gram Panchayat Chhuiha 6. Sobharam s/o Dukhiram Ratre aged (Sixty three) years, an ex-panch of village Gram PanchayatChhuiha, 7. Purshottamlal s/o Horilal Kewat aged 29 (Twenty nine) years. All resident and cultivators permanent address at village - Chhuiha, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Gram Panchayat Chhuiha Through Sarpanch (resident of comperismg village Gindola under the Gram Panchayat) by name Sabarsingh Gond, in the Tahsil Bilaigarh District Raipur 2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, Tahstl Bllaigarh, District Ralpur 3 Sub Division OfRcer (Maglstrate) , Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilairagh, District Raipur 4. Secretary, Gram Panchayat. Bilaigarh, District Raipur 5. Sabar Singh s/o Anandram Gond aged 60 (sixty) years, Sarpanch ofGram Panchayat Chhuiha and residentofcomprising village Gindola in the Gram Panchayat Chhuiha Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur 6. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Raipur. 1 l^ Present: ^^^^•Sy^^ Mr. J.R. Verma, learned counsel forthe petitioners. Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal. tearned Govt. Adv., for the Stete ofChhattisgarh. Mr. N.K. Shukla. Sr. Adv, with Mr. Shaitendra Shukla, iearned counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21ST December, 2005) The petitionere are the residente and agricutturiste of Chhuiha village, Bilaigarh Tahsil, Raipur district. They have filod this writ petition complaining ttiat the first respondent - Gram Panchayat Chhuiha is constructing a Gram Panchayat Bhawan on the public road existing in Khasra Nos. 372, 390/3. 527/2 ad-measuring 1.991 hectare. According to the petitioners, the said land is flie community land and the same is reserved for Nistar right of the villagers and as a grazing ground for cattles. It is alteged that such an action is taken by the first respondent - Gram Panchayat at the instance of Gourishankar Agrawal, Ex MLA, and the action was poljtically motivated on©and therefore this Court should step in under Articte 226 of the Constitution of India and thwart the attempt of the first respondent. (2) On service of notice, an application was mad©by the first respondent - Gram Panchayat dated 07/05/2001. In the said application, Jt is stated that even before the writ petition was fited, the building was constructed up to plinth tevel; situs of the bujlding js quite away from the road; the construction is not on tiie public road as alleged by the petitioners; that one of the petitioners was also a party to the decision taken by the Gram Panchayat to construct Panchayat Bhawan in the land in question. The correctness of these specific averments made in the r-- \>'\ -2>- application are not denied by thewrit petitioners by filing any repjy. The facts stated supra would show that the dispute brought beforo the Court bristles with the disputed facts. tt is quite often said and reiterated that this Court in a summary proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 would not b@ well advised to undertake the resolution of disputed facts for the simple reason that in order to do it, it becomes imperative for the Court to permit the parties to lead evidence. tender witnesses for cross examination by each other ete. Be that as it may, In the instant case, since the specific averments made by the Gram Panchayat in its application noted above are not traversed by the writ petitioners, there is no good ground for me to doubt the integrify of the sworn statements rnade by the Gram Panchayat in the application. In that vtew of the matter, 1 dismiss the writ petition. However, this order shall not preclude the writ petitioners to work out their tegal remedies, if they are so advised, before the jurisdictionaj civil Court in a properiy instituted suit. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice p^3?^-- -fe. .^