IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPURCCHH&TTISSAKH) WRIT PETITION N0. 2-v\^\ OF 2003 PETITIOHERS 1. Graffl Panchayat Bakalwahi, tbrough Sarpancb, Manoba.i. Bho^aged about ^ .^y ^^ ^-^w- ^y- '^fr'^'' -<l*3'~ ^' 28 years, wlfe of Gangadhar Bho| resident o£ Bakulwahi, Tehsil- Narayanpur, District-Bastar,(C.G.) 2. Up-sarpanch Graa Panchayat Bakulwahi Keshav Raa Nang.son o£ salikrara Nang,| aged about 35 years, resideot of ' Bakulwabi, Tehsil Narayanpur, District-Bastar(C.G.) V E R S U S H BESPONDENTS. 1» State of Chhattisgarh, through Si-ib Divisional Officer(Revenue) Narayanpur, Distrlct-Bastar,(c.O.) 2« Slrjashankar, son of Marharam, aged about2£ years,. 3. ilagesbsaE.soHof Chaltan singh, aged about 22- years* 4. Blrmal Patra.son of Daygraa, aged about ,2.2-y$ars- 5» sukhlal, son of Rap Sai aged aboufej1^ years. 6. Ashols Bhoyar, son o£ Pancham Bhoyar, aged about 2.5 ye ars • 7. N arottam Bboyar ,son of Biharilal aged aboat ^2-. years. 1 Ife Respondent No«2 to 7 residents" Bakalwahl & Belgaon.Tehsl.S?*';'''" Narayanpur,]3istrict-Bastar,(c.G;")g WRIT PETITION UHDER ARTICLES 226/227 6y_THE CONSTITCTTION OF 1IHDI&. "» o ^>»• »» ^ .^ XI-HC-22 sdlww i^mcit^<*K^it ^Kff ^ ^. 's?? -*tWW<ti ofllwis, Rwiwy ^Rt?T tR^? ^--^p.-^N^ »u*ii?«|ia«f(w !2W 3lI^tW<IRIT%!¥<f 30.8.2003! 5hri Vogesh Paridsy counsel fdi( Shri Pravin Das PL for the re;sp|ondent Heard both thecounsel. By this wnt petitipn under Ar'j Indla The petitioners hwe ehallenged] the Prescrtbed Officef/ Sub &ivisionbl has sst asids ths appoihtmsnt of Pan (Appeol and Revlston) Rules 1995 pre^ otherwise pfovided in the Act or" ruii appeal shali Ijc- (a) in the case of an order p|issed by the Sub Divisiondlofflcer ynder- any provision of the under, totheCollector'". Therefore, in this case; the alternatisl to the petitioners. In jfact, instead ordinapyjttrisd!ctionun(lerArficles2| the petitioners ought toj have robved t^ie Collector- ih appeol wtijch they have A- '^ not dons. ! : J £^. ;:.-. ^' ^t<tfa4h 'tTPE^ff "^ '^^ ^^K ^ <fl^"EW STf^? the petitioners. No.l/State. licles 226/227 of the eons+i+ution bf [The order dated 9.7.20G3 passed by' Officar whereby the teafned SDO he Ponchayat Karmi nKide; by the Counsei for the (letitioners sub|'nits that Ruie 3 of the M.P.Ponchayat eribes That" Save wher'e It has been fcs or bye-laws made there under, gn Act or rules or byalaws made there e and efficocious retnaiy isavailable i" •'- •- of moving thid Courtjih the ex+ra 26/227 of the Constit|tion of Indio, 1111 ijgR ifiill XI-HC-22 sfi^r'W fip®?3l!^I ^i'ft^rtiti ^ ^of '3^ 'BTOI?!?!, ®Til*f*is,fagwy 3n^?T 1ra% Hi*«iia>Hi<*i: - ^T. 200 "'" ftre^sr' Thus, in view of above, lom to be dismissed on the grpund that efficacious remedy of approaching t The psfjtion is .occordingly di^ =lil«f<'f41-l *<l*)irif ^ ftrit '^R?R ifStSOTSII^I >f the opinion that this petition is liable 'fhe petifibners have an aiternative and coliectop in apl Sd/- LC.Bhado< Judge misasd. <»