P C) No 7350 of 201 ’ ‘PET’ITONER I l R’'" G arneshwar upt ged about 62 ears R/o Vlllae — Bauh a y g ar Block — Ara r ng, T sul- Arang, Dustnct alur G ersus he ae o attusgarh rou ecretary, Revehue Depatmen ha Ml a Ralur(CG he R CG asl|a rang a — ran .lstrlct- Ralpur ( G _ M h (C G) ansharam S/o Makhan Sau /o Chalu au ae aout 6 S t Sh gd b 2 S/ Lte Manharan‘ rs te anhalya a K Lal § RESPONDENTS' 1 1 Rp (C ) V T Stt f Chh Thgh The «S rt DKS Bwan antra y p) 'aiu Rpr The Thdr IA, Thsnl Offuce A D C ) e a yea hall Ram Sahu S/o Late Sukhlal Sa handrakant BanJare o ate yare Banare aed about 55 ea loc — rang Tahsu — Aran @ HIGH COURT OF THE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W ( 10 T Collector alpur, Dlstrlct- () s hu ar f, 'C S/ L Plal r j g yrs gBk A g, " \ \v , . .P.(C) No. 7350 o 2010 W f - RER _. ’ (13.12.2010,) V UNIL KUMARSINHA, J » Heard on admISSIon _ d I R A The petitioner Is aggrieved With the order! ated 6 12 2010 passed In . " everpu'e Case No I O7 A/74 year 2010-2011 by the Additional TehSIIdar“ rang, TehSIl Aran Dlstrlct Ralpur The Impugned order reads as under -' u “6/12/2010 71.3 WWr m WWW trhwl W- H 272 ubmit that the concerned A , I s d slldar passed"the ord lrectly' He submit ethat even rder Is taken to be u/s 248 of th 2V @ ORAuo r J S [W€51 we E WV, » ,’ ,' h er ‘ " ,ild t o ef ” ' r ' .P.('o. 5 of 201 e may have flled an objectlon u/s 32 of the Land Revenue oe before TehS by flllng thls writ petition Therefore in vrew r h Cd the t II ar ltself but Without domg all this the petlroner has rushed to this Court, V of the effcaCIous alternatlve ' emedies available to the petitioner the petition may be dismissed at the-f dmisiion stage itself V as Mr Verma in View of the preliminary objection taken by the State i ounsel also agrees that there are statutory remedies under the Land en e Code 1959 and the petitioner is ready to avail those remedies owever he submits that even Without granting breathing time to the petitioner the Tehsildar has passed the orders for removal of the possessmn f petitioner from the disputed land by applying police force He shows the ‘ copyfof the order dated 10 12201 ssed by the concerned Additional eh3ildar in this regard He submits that the petitioner may be permitted to availstatutory remedy but for the time being some protection may be granted i o at the petitioner may not be thrown out frdm the portions of their land in k such a manner which is arbitrary and illegal _ 1 _ i kl have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also : ‘ ‘ i l hsp: r a w-a u _ af ’ l perused the records of the writ petition _ ‘A fter passing the aforesaid order on 6 12§2010 the concerned authority assed an orderdated 10 122010which reads as under- y y i L . 5 “101121201 » y _' , 11.i_g§iih—\mrli21l _ ‘ - "” / :2, [:aFrrawrUiatm/u/m atrarqwoaaaiwrrnw '; _‘:Wmmmw;m%mmwa a‘mmrauamilaaat’imwt iairiwrrrx'mi - as} 15/12/2010 in 1200 aid b? ti E‘c'rar 611W Viermiu'mtraatlautittiféimtmwwgm WWEWWWW Imam iwaihmhlaahwaohomwwgt‘ Ammo immamwmwwmr $1" t l y r w the concerned authority has direct hat on 15 12 2010 the posses‘ on I he petitioner would be removed wrth t an “ ns help of the police force In the n View of the fact that ther L ' 1 pus statutory remedy agai \ e e d 6 12 2010 ldeem it aroriate to disposed oft ‘s petition o ed a t v h’ acts and Circumstances of the case 1 e / th ordr date ppp ia 3 wCyN 730 0 _ ,, _C Rve H ot ‘ a , T s W'(C) N‘_7350 200 .P; o_. of1 / t he petltloner to avall statu dy against the h berty to t tory reme rder, dated'6 010 th l the remedy avarlable t o 12 2 e petrtroner free to aval o hlm under the Land Revenue Code or any othe remedy wrthln a period of 1 5 ays ,from today He would also be free to prayf r Interim protectlon beore te oncerned authority agamst the orders dated 6 12 2010 and 10 12 20 d f h c 10 It Is directed that In the meanwhlle the orders asse by the arbr pd Ntf ehsrldar re order dated 6 122010 as also order dated 10 122010 sa emain stayed for a period of one month from to a t p td fll g * With the aforesald observations/dlrectlons the wrlt etltlon sans lnay rsposed of it Is made clear that this Court has not expresse any opinion on merl r case and the case of the ner 'shall be disposed of by the o erned authority on Its own merits In accordance With law of the ’ t c ertified co as er rules C py p Sd/- Sunil Kumhr Sinha 4 i T hll r y d ' d ts o »