SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRIT PETITION NO. 21 65 OF 1992 PETiTlONER§n 1 . Amarbahadur Singh, Son of Shivmangal Singh, Lalbahadur Singh, Son of Shivmangal Singh, Samarbahadur Singh Son of Shivmangal Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Son of Ayodhyapratap Singh: Samayraj Singh; Son of Ayodhyapratap Singh Samaypratap Singh, Son of Ayodhyapratap Singh All residents of viHage Dharamapur, Tahsil Pratppur, District Surguja, M.P. Vs. R§§POND§yTS The State of Madhya Pradesh. through Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. Additionaf Collector. Surguja. Present : Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. (ORAL ORDER) (Passed on 20m March, zoos) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Additional Collector. Surguja. 2"” respondent herein, marked as Annexure- PIT dated 18-05-1992, cancelling Bhoomiswami grants made earlier in favour of the petitioners herein. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH :_§JJ_."ASPU_,R___ (2) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, i cannot take any exception to the impugned order of the Additional Collector, Surguja. lndisputably, a person in order to seek Bhoomiswami grant should possess less than 5 acres of land. The finding of the Additional Collector, Surguja is that on the date of grant each of the writ petitioners had held more than 5 acres of land. (3) The petitioners 1 to 3 are the sons of one Shivmangal $ingh, whereas petitioners 4 to 6 are the sons of one Ayodhyapratap Singh. Petitioners 1 to 3 and their father, on the relevant date, had held 19.891 hectares of land, whereas petitioners 4 to 6 and their father had held 18.851 hectares of land. ln other words, each of the coparcener constituting two families had held more than 5 acres of land on the date of grant. The socio economic piece of legislation which is intended to bring about agrarian reforms in the country is required to be strictly construed and enforced. The persons who are not entitled to the benehts of law cannot be permitted to have advantages secured illegally. ln that view of the matter, i am of the considered opinion that the Additional Collector, Surguja was justified in canceling the grants made earlier in favour of the petitioners on the wrong basis. ln the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sdl- Chief Justice (4)