APPLICANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. ( C) N0. 7305/2007 Akulpad Rani (Rai) S/o Shri Ashwiai Ram. (Rai), Aged about 41 years, R/o Village Kamalpur, Talisil Pal, District Surguja (CG). VERSUS 1] 2] 3] 4] State of CUiatdsgarh, Through CoUector, Surguja District Sui^uja (CG). Sub-Divisional Of&cer (Revenue), Ramaaujganj, District Sui^uja (CG). Tahsildar, Pal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). Mayaraui, W/o Shri Paachram (Panchan.and) Vishwas, Aged about 65 years, R/o VHlage Kamalpur, Tahsfl Pal, District Sui^uja (CG). WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present;- Mr. Manoj Paranjpee, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent N0. 4. ORAL- ORDER on ^- 1. Heard on I.A. No. 03 application for takmg additional documents aud facts on record. On due consideration I.A. No. 03 is aUowed. Additional documents aad facts are taken on. record. 2. Order impugned dated 28/9/2007 passed by Board of Revenue, Chliattisgarh, Bitaspur m Revision Case N0. RN/16/RA- 68/499/2006 viUage Kamalpur, Talisil Pal, District Surguja, C.G. whereby inaintauuiig fhe order Board of Revenue disinissed fhe revision petition perused. 3. As per copies of the orders aad docuiaents firsUy laad was given to fhe petitioner on lease by fhe Govenuiient subsequenfly lease was caacelled and revisiou petition is pendiag before the Board of Revenue during pendency of such proceeduig, proceediug under Section 248 offb.e C.G. Land Revenue Code, (ia short 'fhe Code') was initiated. Present petitioner has not vacated the Govt. laad f^ •%y^»^ '^^^ ^/ --£-- 4. thereafter show cause notice for sendiag for ciyil jail was also issued to the petitioner aud after hearing the parties leamed Sub Divisioiial Of&cer has passed the order sending civil jail for 15 days to the petitioner, Order was chaUenged before the superior Court includtng Board of Revenue aad by disinissing fhe revision. petition Board of Revenue has iiiauitaiued the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer. At the tinie of passiag fhe order Sub Divisional Officer and even tiU today present petitioner is iu possession of the Govt. laud, he has not evicted the Govt. laad. He has not coinplied the orders of fhe Board of Revenue passed m. accordauce with the rule after foUowiug fhe prescribed procedure ia such circuinstances petitioner does not deserves any sympathy. He is required to coinply fhe order passed by couipetent Court, I do not find auy ground for uiterference ia the order impugned. Consequeutly, fhis petition is liable to be disniissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^-