u^-vo<.:.^»"%/ '^-i-^yf11^-^ ^-^s^-' ^ J- ^c" ®8fe 1F "EK^ ^"p.? fcs? Si.I'-i' ^^""^^^^ t^"- " :,N»'"""" A .•«•**'°' IN TH^fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRITPETITION N0. ^~72—OF 2006 PETITIONER Dev Prasad Mishra S/o Bhikam Prasad Mishra, aged about 55 years, resident of Sirgitti, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). \^r.^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralay, D.K.S .Building, Raipur (CG). /2. Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF_ THE CONSnTUTION_QF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR WRTTS. ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE -^^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGAreH AT BiLASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No. 472 S PETmONER RESPQNDENTS yersu; Dev Prasad Mishra The State of Chhattfegarh and anofrier. VVraT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTION OF INDiA Shri Sunii Sahu, counsei for the petitioner. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panei Lawyer for Sne Sfsta/respondents. ORAL ORDER (18.11.2010) The petittoner ciaims to be <n poss^sion e?f 6930 sq. fl. of Governmant tand bearing Khasra F^to. 511/1 at viiiage Sirgitti, District - BHaspur. An order for remova! of encroachment was passed against him by She Tahsiidar, Bilaspur on 03-12-2001, which was affimwd by the Sub Divssional Officsr, BKaspur on 20-05-2CKS3 and by ttie Board of Revenus on 21-01-2(xM. PefiUoner's wnt petition bearing W.P. No, 2654/05 questioning the vaKdity of tiie orders passsd by the Revenue Authoriti®was dismissed by this Court on 11-Q7-20CB (Annexure P,<3), however iiberty was reseroed In favour of fce petitioner to ralse ttie matter m Civii Sujt. (2) The pefflioner thereafter preferred Clvil Sust m the Court of III Civii Judge Ciass - ii, Biiaspur. Copy of the piaint fe annexed wih the writ petition as Annexure P19. One (rf {he reifefe claimed in the writ petifion is for issuance of a decree to cancei the warrant of arrest againsi hsm issued ly tti®Sub Divjsfona! Cfficer m execution crf the order of dispossession issued against him. : "^^ *- [ y- A,- (3) it is infomied at the bar ttiat ttte suit has been dismissed during pendency of tiw writ petition and a Second Appeai is pending in tfiis Court. Sn vfew ofthe above, Shis Court is of the opmion that th& instant writ petition has becoms infrucfeious because the order passed by the Cmi Court in exercise of powsre under Qrder 39 Ruto 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. has merged in ths finai ordsr passed in the Civii Suit and the order directing for saiding the petitioner to cM! prison was also under chaiienge in ihe suit whfch too has , been dtsmissed. (4) ConsequenUy, the instant writ petition is dismissed as inftuctuous. The petltioner, if he s& desirss, may seek appropriate interim order in ttre pending Second Appeai. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge