cy^) c ^•\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION N0.3 3 ^6 OF 2006 ^^^^•^&w, PETITIONER ^ Sukhram S/o Sukhsen/AK/o village Duinardih, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. >Asi\- BapVt^ow-r ^ RESPQNDENTS 6^y\\c-aniTa' A--^ :3!/-&>^^ ^ VERSUS 1. Board of Revenue Chattisgarh Through : The its Secretary Bilaspur ./-"..^^ ^yy ^^' ^' y®°.&•••'" y'" ^ ^" 2. The Collector, SurgUja, District Surguja C.G. 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) , Tahsil Arabikapur, District Suguja C.G. ,4. (a) Smt. Gati W/o Late ;Jageshar (b) Smt. Laxmi D/o Late Jageshar W/o Mansai (c) Smt. Rampati D/o Late Jageshar, W/o Badlu /' 5. Pandara S/o Rupsai Rajwar . 6. Raghunandan S/o Rupsai Rajwar The respondent no. 4 (a), (b), (c) and 5 are resident of village Dumardih and respondent no. 6 is resident of village Tirkotga, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja C.G. /" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN Boari ofRevenue CIihattfsgarh & others HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 3326 of2006 Sukhiam Hon'ble Mr. Justice ;hri Rakesh Pandey, Advcwate for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Agiawal, Depiity Govemment Advocate for ths rcspondents No. 2 aud 3. ORAL ORDER (27th July, 2006), present writ petition filed under stitution of India iiupugns the orde fcle 227 ofthf dated 14.03.2006 (Annexure P^J) passed by the Boaj Revision Case No. 13/A-23/2004- of Revenue after having considere found that tbe Siib Divisional sppreciated aU fhe facts aad ri of Revenue ia ^ •05 whereby the Boarcl cl fhe facts of the case 'er, Ambflsapur has not evidence of fhe case 9,. properly. Acconlingly, fhe Revision was allowed parfly and fhe matter was remanded back to the Stib DivisionaS OiBcer, Ainbikapur to consider and decide the disputes after aifoiding aa opporinnity of hearing to both the parties on inerit, in accordance with law. I have heard leamed coiuisel for ;one fhrough fhe records appended to fhe petition. It is not found that fhere is any infirmity or iBegality ia the onler passed by fhe Board of Revenue, so as A-> wairaat, ^ Bablu interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Articte 227 offhe Constitutioa oflndia. 3. Accordingly, fhis petition is disnussed. However, ia fhe facts and circumstances of the case, the status-quo wifh icganl to possession of the teuid in dispute, as obtamed today shaU be maintained, till disposal of the case by fhe Sub Divisioaal Officer, Ainbikapur. The Sub Dh'isional Officer, Ainbikapiir is directed to dispose of fliis inatter witliin a period of fhree months from the date of I'eceipt/production ofa copy offliis orier, No oider as to Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge