IN THE HON'BLE HIG COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT of“ , BILASPUR (cal WRIT PETITION (227) No. \gtIC) OF 2010 (s3) PETITIONERS : 1/ Sanjeev Sinha S/o G. S. Sinha, aged NON-APPLICANT about 34 years, R/o Gondpara, NO.1 Subhash Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). NON—APPLICANT 2. Arvind Kumar Verma S/o Laxmi «A Prasad Verma, aged about 4O years R/o Gondpara, Subhash Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). Present address Near Bus Stand, Malkharauda, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir—Ch‘ampa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS APPLICANT 1. ‘7 Ramesh Kumar Yadav @ Lalua S/o Late Hincharam, R/o in front of Old Maharashtra Bank, Gondpara, Subhash Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). NON—APPLICANT 2. (I The State of Chhattisgarh, through .k" NO.3 Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / interfered with §he concurrent orders pa=ssed by the Sub Divisiona! Qf§¢er as we“ as the Addmona! Canectcr as ma said arder$ were paSSed after efaborata‘y considering the antire facts of the case and tha timings recorded by the Appeiiate Authority are in the reaim of méing 9f fact whish shame net have been interfereri under the revisiéml jurisdietion 0f the Board of Revenue. Learned counse! for the petitionere aiso submits that the Board 9f Revenue committed an error of raw by abservmg that the preeent is a case of exercise of easmentary ight by the respendent Ne.1. (4) Per senile, Shri Prafui¥ Bharat, _!eame§ couneet for reeeondeni Mei}, on the strength of raw kaié down by the.M.P. High Court in ihe meeer of Sakenebai vs. State of MP. reported in 19% RN 341 has argued that the sobject tand being within the Municipa! Corporation timits, appticatton under Section 248 wee not matntainabte and the Board of Revenue nae not committed any error in attowing his revision. e {5) On perueat ot the papers annexed with the writ petition one frorn the findings recorcied try the revenue authorities it wouid appear that the respondent No.1 is in occupation of a piece of Government iano as shown in the report of Revenue inspector iNazui) (Annexure 3’6}. The feport submitted by the R. i. (Nezui) hae not been chaiienged or the effect thereof has. not been drhrted by the orders oaeeed by the revenue authorities including Eoard of Revenue thus the fact that the respondent Not has encroeohed a piece of Government tend a3 shown in the report of reepondent No.1 has become eonoiuded. V I (6) The question which is to be addressed in this writ petition is whether Van encroachment made on a piece of Govt. nezui tend which ties within the r Dower Municipal under Cameraman Sectkm 248 area 9f the can Essie. be removed £3: ihe Tahsiidar in exemiSe of 'i {1 a) With this observaticn, the writ petition satands disposed of. (1 1) No order as to costs. Sd/l— mar Mishra rashant Judge K“ > P