R\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRNa. la 0 Q f2004 / PETITIONER 4313‘ : i. Raje$hwari Chaturvedi, W! o Shri Naveen Kumar Chaturvecii, Aged abnut 48 years 2 Naveen Kumar Chaturvedi‘ SI o Aged abaut 5 6 yearg. Both R! o Bhartiya Nagax, Bilaspur (C.G.) —Verssus — Q . RE$PONDENTS : 1. Baaxd of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Through itg Member Judge, Bilaspur {CIR}. 2. Sub Divigional O$cer (Revenue), Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. Tahsildark Bilagpur {CG}. Shri Shaukat Aliy S] o Shri Jiwaji Bhai, Rf o IQlaparganj, Bilaspur (C.G.), w‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32612 .7 OF THE CON$TITUION OF 1NB!& FGR I$SUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIQ‘, ORDER OR DIRECTEON TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. Details of the petition. 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: 9‘s par Gauge title. FARTICULARS (3F THE REFEPONDEN‘TS: As par éauge title. XI-HC-22 m...k>.’.....l.‘i9.a....W between Satish‘ Chand 1n all'these writ pet tions return has already been ° filed on behalf of respond nt No 4 The Circumstances 1 admg to fllmg of all these wnt petitions are that respo dent No.4 herexn moved an application/before the Te sildar, Bilaspur under Section Shri Rajeev Shrivas'taiva, counsel for the petitioners! ’ Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Adv. for rcspondcnt No. 1 to 3. Shri M.D. Sharma, c unsel for respondent No.4. This order shall gove n the disposal of the petitians n.ame1y writ Petition c.14o9/2oo4 between Smt. Rajeshwari Chaturvédi £3 nother Vs. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh 65 others, Writ Petition No.1410/2004 ‘ ain Vs. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh 8a others, Writ petition No.141‘2/200 ard 01f Revenue Chhattistgarh between Alok Kumar Vs. & others, Writ petition No.1411/2004 between Smt. Board Vecna Tiwari as Chhattisgarh & others an Writ Petition No.1545/2004 others Vs‘ Board of Revenue, nce all these writ petitions of Revenue anot er .Vs betWeen Smt. Jyoti Dixit Chhattisgarh 8a others, relate to the same issue anti impugn the order-dated the Board of r passed Revenue 23.03.2004 Chh‘attisgarh, Bilaspur‘th refore, they are being disposed of by this common order. V IF'T""\ * r _ . faLn 4 c i b mm WM mm mmmm Wwu§wm %a~1%mané‘a 28.06.2004 XI-HC~22 250 of the Land Revenue Codc, 1954 raquesting thcreinr that he is Bhuswami 01" the land bearing Khasra No.724/ 1 area 0.24 acres s ‘ituated at Village‘Tifra (Bharti Nagar) and the possession of the petitioners herein over the said land are unauthori ed, therefore, the possession of the same may be given to him. The Tehsildar after considering the arguments f the parties vide order—dated 09.07.2001 rejected the a plication by holding that the application is not maintain blc under Section 250 of the Code. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildai', respondent No.4 herein p ferred an appeal‘before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bil spur who also after hearing the parties dismissed appeal vide order dated ~ 09.03.2003 and held that in order to seck relief under , it is necessary that the applicant who is seeking r lief must be the Bhuswami of the land in dispute, the de arcation of the land must be Section 250 of the Cod established undisputedly ’d. it shall also be clear that on which date the applica t was dispossessed from' the r land in dispute and since t e applicant could not be able to prove all these facts, th refore, the applicant was not entitled for any relief and ppeal was dismissed. Agains aggrieved by the order of S b Divisional Officer, Bilaspur respondent No.4 had pref rred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue Chha tisgarh’, Bilaspur, which was registered as’ Revenue App a1 No.537/A-70/2002—2003‘. naaasaam‘ e XI-HC~22 The learneti Board of Rev nue after hearlng the counsel for the parties allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Tehsildar w h a dlrectmn to conduct an_ enqulry on the applxcauon of respondent No 4 hex-em and he should be granted reh f as prayed 1n the apphcanon I have heard the lea ed counsel for the partxes Learned counsel for he petxuoners argued that the learned Board of Revenue 1111c remandmg the case hack glven a dlrecuon to t e Tehsndar to act on the apphcatmn flled by respo dent No 4 herem and rehef as prayed 1n that apphcatmn e granted to respondent No 4 Counsel further subml that thls duectzlon of the learned Board of Revenue s patently lllegal and pewerse The Board of Revenue wa not authorlzed to glve such a dxrectxon wh11e remandm the case back contrary to the prov1s1ons contalned 1n S ct1on 44 of the Code On the other hand l arned counsel for respondent No 4 tned to support the rder of the Revenue Board Havmg heard the 1e rned counsel for the partles and havmg regard to the acts and circumstances of the case I am of the oplnxon that the d1rect1on/ observatxon of the learned Board of evenue to the extent that to grant rehef as prayed 1n the apphcatlon Is not correct mstead thereof the learne Revenue Board ought to have dlrected the Tehsxldar t conduct an enqulry on the apphcatmn of respondent o 4 herem 1n accordance w1th X K t \ t ‘ > . m.£...!.‘.x.».a.\,9 W209 the law and to pass apprJLpriate order after conducting enquiry in accordance Wit] law. Therefore, in View o‘ the above all the above writ petitions are allowed an the order dated 23.03.2004 passed by the Board of Re enue is modified ‘to the extent that the Tehsildar to ond‘uct an enquiry» on the application of responden‘ No.4 and pass appropriate order in accordance with e' ’law. At the time of passin of the order the Tehsildar will be r’e‘quired to decide follo ing points also:- - Whether on th date of application respondent No4 herein was the Bhuswami of t e land for which he had filed the ap lication and the date when he was d spossessed from the said land. With the aforesaid directions and observations, these petitions are dispos d of. Certified copy as per rules. ‘ Sdl- L.C.BHAD°° Judge (QS'A‘w-LI" [dew