__E HIGH CQURT QF JUDICATUR CHHATTISGARH W AT BILA$PUR mama? W35? © PETITIONEH RESPONDENTS \ VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Revenue Deptt, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Rajpur Development Authority, Through: its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, District Rajpur (C,G.) Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, District » Raipur (C.G.) Tahsildar, Raipur, District -Rajpur (0G,) N.M.D.C. Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Through: its Secretary Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) -1! _ E N .p. No. Kg” g 2005 Surendra Kumar Arora, Aged about 42 years, Jeevahdamal Kakkad R/o. A—20, Shankar Nagar, Rajpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WKIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE m CGNsTITUTIQN OF INDEA “ /f“ XI-HC—78 Mug. .n.k<z . ~ $1200 m aim'ai maW (iaiaaza') mamrWa? mmmanésr WW§WW awméetm $Wsnég‘r 9. 11.2005 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Adv ate for ‘rhe pe‘ri‘rioner‘ Shri Yashwan‘r Sirlgh Th kur, (9W1: Advom‘t‘e for respandenf Nosl & 4. 5hri HB. Agarwaij 5r. dvoca‘re wiTh Shri Pankaj Agarwai. Advocafe for respcndem‘ N032 3. Heard. Tha case 6f ‘rhe pe‘fh‘icner is ‘thu‘r his iand was given f0 , respondenf No.5 by responden‘r N032 & 3 far consfr'ucl'ion of colorxy. When 1'he pgfifioner came f0 know abou‘f Thi3 fad he made an appHccn‘ion' To hesponden'r No.4 hTehsildar, Raipur under- SecTion 250 of 'l'he Land Revenue Code anc§ respondenf No.4 decided fheosaid appiicdfion'vide order dafad 20.£3.2001 and held Tha'r respondanf No.5 has encroached upon ‘H’Ie land of The pe‘l’ifioner. The said ma‘H'er' warn” up fo goard of Revenue and “the Board of Revenue remanded The ma‘H'er back To respondem‘ No.4 fo decide fhe ma‘h‘er afresh$ &espohden‘r No.4 vide order dafed 16.6.2004 again decided The case in favour of fhe pefi’rioner herein. Againsf fhe said order cm appeal was preferred by respondenf No.5 before The Sub DiviSionoi Officer, Ruipur, who has oiso remanded The case back fo respondenf No.4 To decide “rhe some afresh, which is pending before respondent No.4. In The year 2003 ‘i‘he pe‘i’i‘i’ioner herein ha$filed a wrif peji‘i‘fion before W§w$ m 200 areawwa) matimféwiai ammam mmqgama \ mmawwm - 1-- a‘amma ‘Hqis Cour? bearing WP. No.2793/2003 in which Tehsiidm", Raipur was direcl’ed +0 decide ‘i’he case. 4owever, raspondenf Nas.2' & 3 are requesfing ‘rhe Tehééldar, Raipur' no‘r +0 decidé The case, as fhe ma’r'l'er' is being compromisad befween fhe efifioner herein and responden‘r Nos.2 & 3.1 . Caunse! for ‘I'he pe‘rifionezr submih‘ed “rha’r‘ fhe peTiTioner has made a represenfa‘rion before r'espondenf N032 &‘ 3, bu? respondem‘ Nos.2 & 3 are nei'rher deciding represenfa’rion of fhe pefi‘rioner foi" . giving 'ai‘fernafive land nor ey are allowing responden’r No.4- Tehsildar To decide The case f The peTiTioner in pursuance of This CourT‘s order as well as The 0rd r of The SDO. In The circumsTances, respondenT N052 & 3 be direc ed To decidexThe represenTaTion made by The peTiTioner herein To em, To which learned counsel for respondenT Nos.2 & 3 has no ob ’eoTion. Havihg heard learned co nsel for The parTies and having regard To The TacTs and circumsTances of The case, respondenT Nos.2 5: 3 are direcTecl To decide The rep esenTaTion of The peTiTioner afTer considering all The poinTs raise by him in accordance wiTh law wiThin a period of Th ree monThs from T day.‘ WiTh The direcTihn afor aid, The peTiTion sTands disposed of. CerTified copy as per rul s. S‘d/_ L.C.Bhadoo Judge QELES/20Q5;2Q.QOO p . h