^. ? .1^ / ^.mf6= %@K1B- ^..^/ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (2271 No. -^B ^- /2010 PETITIONER ^BW- P^PLlCftr^Tf Jagmohan S/o. Nanhaksharan Sahu, aged about- 65 years, R/o. Talwapara, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) VERSUS •? RESPONDENTS A/6t^ -/W ft- / (^OrATr ^..v'\y-<:.^" ^•••" •^.^" :..^:;....^- ^-"" 1. Tilakdhari S/o. Nanhakasharan Sahu, aged- 60 years, R/o. Talwapara, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) 2. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, through- Secretary, Board of Revenue atBilaspur(C.G-) ^vwv ^^ffU^^-C) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2270FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^ - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition (2271 No.782 of 2010 Jagmohan versus Tilakdhari and another Present: Shri A.K.Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passedon 3rd March, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. In this petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been thrown to the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 4-8-2009 (Annexure P-1) dismissing the petitioner's revision petition under Section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth 'the Code, 1959'). 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts, giving rise to the present dispute between the parties, are that on an application moved by the opposite party under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, an order was passed on 7-7-1993, which was challenged by the petitioner in revision before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector remanded the matter and thereafter the property was again demarcated. On the basis of demarcation report, the Naib-Tahsildar passed an order on 28-2-2001 against the petitioner, which was taken /up in appeal by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer and ^_ thereafter before the Additional Commissioner. hlaving lost two successive appeals, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which has now been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. It has been observed in the impugned order that the said property was demarcated on four occasions and that the petitioner was also present at thetime of demarcation. Thus, the impugned order has been passed to concur with the orders passed by the Naib-Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner. There appears to be dispute regarding encroachment and construction made by the petitioner on a part of the property, which, according to the petitioner, belongs to him. According to the petitioner, having raised the construction by him on his own land and also that there being pakka construction, the provision of Section 250 of the Code, 1959 is not applicable. 5. Be that as it may, in view of concurrent findings and existence of disputed questions of fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, however, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the respective rights, title and interests of the parties in the subject dispute, which may be gohe into by the civil Court in a properly constituted civil suit, if any such suit is filed by the petitioner and that all pleas, factual and legal,shall be open for the parties to be raised therein. Needless to say that the petitioner shall also be at liberty to move an application for temporary •A. "'^ /r'^ \ j S l '^s^-^ i l%.. Gopal -3- injunction with a plea that proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 could not have been drawn by the revenue authorities. 6. The instant writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge