PETITIONER RESPONDENTS M‘kw. L. +n qézL WRIT PETITION (227) No.3” /2010 gm @EwiiE Satish Patel, aged about 38 years S/o Jasbhai Patel, President Nagar Panchayat, Churiya, Distt. Rajnandgaoh l. VERSUS Virendra Bahadur Singh S/o Baleshwar Singh R/o Jaistambh Chowk, Rajnandgaon Rajiv Singh S/o Virendra Bahadur Singh R/o Jaistambh Chowk, Ward No. 22, Rajnandgaon Ajay Patel, S/o Jasbhai Patel, R/o Tahsil Thana Churiya, Distt. Rajnandgaon Jodhiram S/o Ramlal By Caste Teli, Mansingh S/o Ramlal By Caste Teli, Tularam S/o Ramlal By Caste Teli, 5. 6. S/o Aziz Mohd. Radheshayam Shanna, aged about 35 years, S/o Omprakash Sharma, Siddiquk Meman aged about 52 years, S/o Azad Meman Dilip Thakur 'aged about 88 years, S/o Ghurslngh Thakur R 7 to 10 Agriculturist, R/o Village Churiya, 8. 10 * £ R/o Village HaleKosa, Tah and Thana churiya Distt. Rajnagdgaon [l xv; ; . 7. / Sidafép'ie Qureshi, aged about 42 year, The Additional Commissioner, Raipur Distt. Rajnandgaon 1 l. 6 @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF‘THE N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA MR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILA$PUR B: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA WRIT PETITION (227l No. 7622 of 2010 LPETmONER g t Satish Patel _J Vs. LRESPONDENTS I I Virendra Bahadur Singh and others l OF WRIT INDIA PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION APPEARANCE: Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. G. D. Waswani, Gavt. Advocate, for mspondcnt 110.11. oRDER (ORAL; (27.01.2011) Heard. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated O7. 12.2010 passed by the Add}. Commissioner, Raipur in Case No, 12/A-66,’ 2010— 1 1 partly vacating the earlier inten'm order passed by the said appellate Court in his favour on 02. 1 1.2010. The dispute relates to 9 decimal of land situated at Village and Tahsil ChuIiyayDi‘stt.‘ gajnandgaon. According to the petitioner, a complaint was lodged by him and other Villagers regarding fraud committed by respondent no.1 for having possession of Government land without any enh’tlement. On this complaint, the Addl. Collector, Rajnandgaon passed an order on £073.20 l 10 interalja dnding that respondent no.1 is entitled to 4 idecnnals of land and remaining 5 decimal should be recorded as Government land. Both the parties have preferred appeals before L.d [the J Addl. Commissioner. In the appeal preferred by the present l ,. J l l l‘ 1E S petitioner, an order of status quo was initially granted on 02.11.2010 (Annexum P-5) which was later 011 partly vacated by the impugned order dated 7. 12.2010 (Annexure P—6). On a reading of Annexure P—6, it appears that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present at the time of hearing. The order sheet records the presences of respondents 4 r35 5 in the appeal pending before the Addl. Commissioner. Apparently, it appears that the petitioner has not been heaid before passing the impugned order. In View of the above, it is directed that the Addl. Commissioner shall do well to dispose of both the appeals as early as possible and preferably Within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. During the said period of two months, status-quo in all respects shall be maintained by all the parties with respect to the'relevant piece of x land. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of at the motion stage itself. C.c. as per rules. Eao