^I H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1ASPUR DMSIONBeNCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WritJPefition (P.I.L.l No. 2634 of 2007 Petitioner: Respondents Pawan Jaiswat son of Shri Radheshyam Jaiswal, aged about 23 yeare, Ward Member of Ward No.8, Municipal Council Kawardha, Resident of Mathpara Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Versus State of ChhatUsgarh, through : The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). The Secretary, Department of Urtaan Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). The Cottector, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) The Municipal Council Kawardha, Through: The Chief Munidpat Officer, h4unlcipal CouncB Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) The TahsiMar Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) Ramesh Kumar Chandrawanshi son of Shri Latel Chandrawanshi. Resident of Sarafa Line, Rajendra Bhothra Complex, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) WriLPeUtion under Article 226 of the Constittrtion of India 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Preserrt: Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel fbr the'petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. ^rawal, Govemment Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 25m July,2007) -A- The following oral order of the Court was passed by Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, Ag. C.J. This is the second writ petition on the subject in question. First writ petition No. 940/2006 flted by Gumam Saluja was dismissed by this Court by order dated 28-02-2006. In para 5.3 of the petition though the petitioner has mentioned that the petitioner made certain investigation and fbund that Gumam Saluja is havlng all relevant documents. He took those papers from him, however, the petitioner has not indicated about the further investigation made in this petition in regard to filing of this writ petition. Thereafter, when this pedtion was drafted, the counsel clearly indicated that Gurnam Saluja had fited a writ petition earlier, which was rejected, it did not deter the peUtioner from filing this writ petition. PetiUoner has basically made one prayer i.e in para 7.3 wherein it was prayed that the revenue authorities be directed to demarcate the plot No.498 of Khasra No.576and to remove the encroachment immediately. We are of the considered opinion that the peh'tioner has remedy under the revenue law to approach the authorifies concemed for demarcation. In light of the facl that vwit petition on the same issue has been eariier dismissed, no interference is warranted under Artide 226 of the ConsUtution of India. It is clarified that it would be open for the Govemment to ponder over the matter whether reatly there is any encroachment on Uie land in question as the land belongs to Govemment if it is so, some necessary action is required in this regard. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sdi- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge r Si.tbb"