litej'j S ^RP\ itRUi.S. Gaw \u ^; ,1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [C.G.1 WRIT PETITION (227) N0. r)- 1 ^'1- /2010 PETITIONER ^P-C-LI C4-AIY I" ^Sf^ ^1""' ,.' 8t<"\\^-*' €^y':' y RESPONDENT HGH kffL\CW1 ,v^\ [^ Smt. Vimla Devi Agrawal W/o Shri Mahabir Prasad Agrawal, Aged-about 58 years, caste- Agrawal, R/o T.P.Nagar, Korba, Tahsil 8s Distt.- Korba [C.G.] VERSUS ^ J.P.Singhal S/o Mishri lal Singhal R/o T.P.nagar, Korba, Tahsil 8s Distt.- Korba [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE TJTIITLON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE "^ :;"£Al ~'3 S '"^5^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PVR Writ Petition (227) No. 2187 of2010 PETITIONER/ ABnBcant RESPONDENTS/ Non-aBnBcant Smt, Vimla Devi Agrawal VERSUS J.P. Stoghal rWRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUITON QFWD1A\ (SB: Htm'Ue Mr. N.K. Agarwal. 3.) Present : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for Ihe petitiotier. Shri Raj Kamal Singh with Shri MK Baeg, Advocates for respondeat. ORALORDER (Passed on 04.07.2011) The petitioner preferred an application nnder Section 250 ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Gode') before the Tehsildar, Korba, claiming relief of iajunction as well as demarcation of the land. Tdisildar, vide its order dated 27.06.^)09 dismissed petitioners' application on the ground that necessary ingrediente ofSectipn 250 of the Code were not pleaded in the application. Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the SDO, Korba, was allowed vide order dated 30.09.: smd Ae matter was rananded. There-against respondent preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the Boaid of Revenue vide its wder dated 13.10.2009 not only set aside theorder of SDO but also observed that respondent is in possession oflhe disputed land in his owa right and title. Review •>-f >' petition preferred ther&ogainst by the petitioner was alsp disnu^ed. Hence this petition. 3. The only submission made by Shri Patel, lewned couasel for tbe petitioaer is that once the Tehsjldar has dismissed the pel^ipnens' application for want ofpleadiag necessaiy ingredients pf Section 250 ofthe Code, the Board ofRevenue should not have observed aaythiag on the merits of the matter. He fiirtlMsr subnrits that the Board of Revenue, despite admission oftiie respmidfflit regarding encroachment over the petitioners' land, observed th^t Ifae respondent is in possession oflfae disputed land ia his own right and tide. Thwefore, the orders passed by the Board ofRevenue is liable to be set askle. 4. On tiie other haad, Shri Singh, leamed counsel appeariag for respondeat would submit theaiylication prrferred by tlrc petirioner before tiic TehsildaritselfwnsincompeteBt and Aerefore the Boari of Revenue has not committed any illegalily in affirmiag the passed by Ihe Tehsildar. 5. I have heard the eounsel ^pearing for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. A bare perosal of the order of Tehsildar, it is clear that as fhe petitioner utteriy failed to plead necessaiy ingredients of Seetion 250 ofthe Code, therefore the Tehsildar has not eonMnittai any jllegali<y in dismissing petitioners' application filed under Swtion 250 ofthe Code. However, while affinning the order of Tehsfldar, the Boatd of Revenue should not have eatered into the merits of the matter, ^ .--' therefore, Board of Revenue was not correct in recording te fiadings that respondent is in possession ofthe property in dispute in his own right and title, therefore above fiadings, being not sustainable ia law deserves to be and is hCTeby set aside. However, rest part of the orders whercby petitionCTS' revision/review petiticn haye been dismissed, are not disturbed. 7. With the above observati<m the petMon is disposed of, Noorderasto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu