IN TiE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT - BILASPUR. mm pETHlON o. 22” OF 2001. N ”y gyyygdish Singh Kshatriya, -so Late Shri Makhan Singh Kshatriya, aged abaut 50 years,Ex-President Rajput Ksatriya Mahasabha, Chhatt- isgarh, Sub Committee Bilas- Par, R/o Village Janji, Su Tehsil Seepat, Janpad Panhayat, Masturi, District Bilaspur’, (C. G. ). J , ata of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, venue Department, DK.S.Bhawan, Raipur,(c.G. ). The Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District Bilaspur, (c.e.). The Additional Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat, District Bilaspur,(c.e. ). 3 . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ‘OF IEDIA Fm ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIA'IE WRIT IN THE NATURE _ OF MANDAMus/CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. To, MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP. contd...2 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JLSTICE AND HIS HON'BLE COMPANION JUD$S OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAS PUR , (CHHAHISGARH ) . PE TI TIONER u ga US RESPONDENTS j r f ¢£§t / h b ~c Re . 1. \‘7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR a WRIT PETITION N0. 2212 of2001 : Jagdish Singh Kshatn'ya. x RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh VERSUS & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB PETITIONER : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for ORDER ORAL (Passed on 27’ day of August, 2010) notice was Without jurisdiction. On perusal of the impugned notice, it is evident that the same was issued by the Additional TahSildar Seepat Bilaspur under prOVismns of section 248(1) of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘the Code, 1959’) and as such, it cannot be held that the notice was Without jurisdiction. Provisions of section 248 of the Code, 1959 clearly empowers Tahsildar t0 pass an order to take steps under the provisions ofthe Code, 1959 and pass an order in a case, where a person, who unauthorizedly takes or remains in possession of any unoccupied abadi, or service land, or any other land which has been set apart for any special purpose. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned notice was Without jurisdiction, is noticed to be rejected. The petition is premature as no cause of action arises at this stage when no order pursuant to the impugned notice has been passed. The petitioner is at liberty to file response to the impugned show cause notice Within the specified time given in the notice from the date of passing of this order. The authorities may, thereafter, pass order in accordance with the provisions of the Code, 1959.- ln View of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed beingvdevoid of merit. Interim relief granted on 22.03.2002 stands vacated. No order asto costs. sw- Satish K. Agnihotri s‘ “49%, Amit hams».- . ‘_ Ag” r r