c Petitioner ResDendenfe Rambrat Yadav, son of Lafe Rampyari Yadav, aged about 48'years, caste Ahir, residence of vlilage Kurkuriya, Tahsii Sagicha, District Jashpur.C.hhattisgam. Versus State of Cbhattisgarh, through Secretary, Rural and Urban Deyetopment Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Coiiector, Jashpur Nagar, . District Jashpur, Chhattlsgarh. 3. Sub Di . Baglcha. Distrii 4. Chief Executiye Officer, Janpae srcha Panchavat ^.^tli^n^ ?<STui)4rfi iCi, r^iff-'f*!'*?^ "•'acS^n) ir ^'i^^'3'l^iiC^-aiii \wi ^cssn^ui, ^—'iii idi.usycis i L izag •^ 'A, i, Gram Panchayat »1! Bagicha, Dlstrict Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Sukha son of years, caste Pahadi village Kurkuriya, Jashpur, Chhattisaar aae( * KR 1 ^^/ Kowa, residence of ?asicha. District (Writ PeSition undsr Articie 226 of Constitution of india) Prssent: Itp- ^ Mr. C.J.K. Rao, counset for Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Deputy Advocate Genera! forthe State. [Passed on this21 dayofOctober, 2008) 'ith: consent of the iearned counsei for the parties, the matts heard finaih 2) Learned counsei appearins •4'i/Ti/^ Irt^^^a'&^j^iV^r^y r^^ s^^pynf^i 'r zns ssuiiGH©r SUDHI!II£S 'iinsi ir ostition scheduie land bearina Khasra No.68/3, 68/4 area 1.50 acrss 2.50 acres totai area 4 acres is bsina encroached ^?L to the petrtiQner; and tile same ts No. 4, 5 and 6. The petjtioner .- 2-- nade a compiaint before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bagicha, Djstrict Jashpur. The Sub Dlvisional Officer bv order dated 15-2- (Annexure P/21 staved the construction of the Talab on the pefition Lsarned counsel further submits that despite the stay schedule iand. L> vw f^ v^,^ f^, f^ 5^t1 r ^Sn. t^< =f.<^T: f <^y^ i ? r^i •f~ft i T^i^.'<Mrfl4ri ^ln- '^'l^ <^ y/\tf?" o^-^^-'»F^.^ <*• yiciHi.eu u¥ius; iiev^iius i3LiUiynuis&, if!^ !ss?p.uuus?nii& s'siu. ii-i, t-? 'eti-i^ procesded with construction. Being aggrieved by the rsspondent No.4, 5 and 6, ths petitioner ^moveci a contc! P/3'5 befbre the Sub Divisional Ofi 3V order dated 21 -2-2007 (Annexure Pi ^n ^ .'°5rirss*7 / ^u-A-^V^f. i. Divisional Off ;_^.in n^ 4-a",".. ivs i vl' U ?v. pstition on «v r. The Sub directed the rsspondent'No.4 statlng that that the sfaywas construction of pond, hsnce stop the construction of the pond, tii! further order in the iand ofthe petitioner. 3) Having heard iearned; counsel appearing tbr the petitioner, perused the^ pieadings and documents appended thereto, it is evidsnt that the stay was granted' by tho Sub Divisionai Officer. Sf the construction is procesding on the petition schedule Sand, 'the same shail ^^4'j^^i f^^» oi.fflVcu, Ti".^ 'he resoondent No.4 is directed to ensure the order dated 21-2- 2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Syb Divisiona! officer, is compiied 5) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to ensure the compliance of this order. Consequenfiy, i.A.No.1 and 2 also siand disposed of. SdA SatishK.Mgmhbtri -Judge r^.5jU