^^.L^W >'B'^'^" *'" ^•--"""^'l' V-ie^ .......T^""^ '")j& I ^- ^i.--^ r^1 ^ C^i^7__ SINGLEBENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( C) No. ^^^, Of 2011 BETWEEN Mangal Ram S/o Sewak Raxa, aged aboiut 25 years, by caste Satnami, R/o Village Belha, Tahsil NawagEirh, District Janjgir Chainpa (CG). PETmONER APPUCANTNO.^ Versus 1. Satyanarayan, aged 35 years S/o Satguru. 2. Punitram , aged 38 years, S/o Sobhiram. 3. Laxinan aged 31 years S/o Gangaram. 4. Bharat aged 21 years, S/o Gangarain. 5. Janki Bai, aged 50 years W/o Gangaram. 6. Munda, aged 62 years, S/o Santosh. 7. Kaushal, aged 58 years S/o Santosh. 8. Ponchal, aged 60 years S/oVokalwa. 9. Rahas aged 50 years S/o Volkawa. 10. Jagatrara, aged 80 years, S/o not known. 11. Ghasirain, aged 50 years S/o Jagatram 12. Ghanshyani aged 45 years S/o Je^atram. 13. Sunder aged 35 years S/o Jagatram. 14. Devnath aged 25 years S/o Jagatrain. 15. Sukhin, aged 60 years W/o Brijlal. AU by caste Sataami,, Sl, No. 1 to 9 R/o ViUage Belha, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa. S.No. IQto 14 R/o Vfflage Khokhari, Tahsil Paragarh, District Janjgir Champa. (Non-Applicants) 16. Sukh Sagar, aged 25 years, S/o Resham, by caste Satnaini. 17. Uttari Kumari, aged 40 years D/o Resham, by caste Satnami. 18. Ramat, aged 37 years, S/o Reshain, by caste Sata'iaml. 19. Rainoutin, aged 34 years, D/o Resham, by caste Satnami. -V ^\ |^'Bt( ^^ z. 20. Firtin, aged 55 years W/o Reshain, by caste Satnami. 21. Raj Kumar , aged 40 years, S/o Subekrani, by caste Satnami. (Sl Nawags _4^-^~ y VU\2-W RESPONDENTS: ^^Cjlo»+0lo-11°5't^T~ •t—- before the Board ^ .Revenu' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ 'ss.. B»e "11, HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. W.P. (ClNo. 978 of 2011 PETITIONER Mangal Ram. Versus RESPONDENTS Satyanarayan and others. Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (18/02/2011) Fotlowing oral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. Heard. (2) The instant petition has been preferred to seek a limited relief for a direction to the Board of Revenue to decide Revision Case No.RN/OS/R/1-27/430/20)8, Sukhsagar and six others vs. Satyanarayan & fourteen others, village Belha, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa which is pending consideration before the Boardof Revenue since1stAugust2008. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in spite of repeated reminder by the Board of Revenue the recordof the Court of Sub DMsional OfFicer and Nayab Tahsildar is not sent and the notices have not been served on some of the non-applicant in the pending revision. He would submit that the matter is unnecessarily delayed for last about 2% years. (4) Having gone through the order-sheet of the revision proceeding which is pending before the Board of Revenue (Annexure P/2) this Court is satisfied that a direction is required to be issued to the Board of Revenue to conclude the proceeding as early as possible. (5) In view of the above, it is directed that the Board of Revenue shall do well to hear and dispose ofthe Revision Case bearing No.RN/06/R/1- 27/430/2008 as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - (6) With ttie above observation, the instant writ petition stands disposedof. . ^-_-——- --— Sd//- - Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge