^%^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2603 of 1995 PETITIONER : Jai Singh son of Jagan Dogi-a aged about 55 years, Kotwar, Village Naokar Tahsil Kuiikuri, District Raigarh (Madhya Pradesh). VERSUS. RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Madhya Pradesh thi-ougii the Secretary, Department ofRevenue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. Collector, Raigarh. 3. Additional Collector, Tashpur tahsil District Raigarii. 4, Under Secretary, Department of Revenue, goveniiiient ofMadhya Pradesh Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal. WEJT PEiniON UNDER AKriCLE 226 AND 227 QF THE CONS'ITIUTION QF INDIA SB: Hon'bie Slm Saiish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shii A.D. Vaishnav with 8!m Sameer Sahu, Advocates for the petltioner. Sbri A.8. KadAwaha, Deputy Acivocate General forthe State. (Passed on 5U1 day ofDecember, 2008) 1. Wrth the consent oftlie parties, the matter is taken up for hearing tmally. 2. The case ofthe petitioner is that he is m possession ofthe lands, which were in possession ofhis predecessor. The possession ofthe lands iii question has been uniirteniipted and coiitinuous. The petitioner claims Bhoomiswami rights over the laiids, which have been granted by the competent authority to his predecessor prior to 1950. 3, Leamed comisel ibr the petitioner submits that the facts and question oflaw mvolved in this petition as well as the relief souglit are similar to that of in W.P.No.341 of 2002 (Fatte Siiigh aiid otliers vs. The State of CTiiiattisgarh <& others), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22 Febmary, 2007, in the followmg temis: ~1 "Iiithe result, this petition is disposed ofwith tlie direction that the compefeiit authority shall consider the case ofthe petitioners for grant ofBhoomiswami right in accordance with la^v after affording proper opportunity of hearmg to the concemed parties, within a period of tlii'ee months fromthe date ofreccipt ofa copy ofthis order." 4. Leamed counsel appearing for State does not dispute the above fact. 5, In vievv ofthe above, this petition stands disposed of m teiins ofthe order dated 22-2-2007 passed by this Court in the matter ofFatte SmgSi (supra). No order asto costs. 6. Consequently, pcndmg applications, ifany, staiids disposed of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu