c 9K /€Gg IN THE HIGH COURT OF ¢EHATTI$GARH AT BILkSPUR / WRNO. 1545;2004 i/ 1, Snat. Jyati Dixit, PETITIONERS : W] D Shri Vixmd Kumax Dixit, Aged about 34 yearg. 2‘ Vincd Kumar Digit. 810 7_ V‘ 9\7<\T‘ Aged about 39 §r5ars. 3. Smt. Surekha Dixit, W; o Shri Vinay Dixit, ixged about 32 years. Q A31 R} D Saclar Baww, Q‘ Bilaspur (CG; *VersuS — : 1. Baard of Remanue, Chhattisgarh, Thraugh its. Member Judge, Bilasnpur {c.Cn). Sub Divisiarxal O$oer (Revenue), Bilaspur (C.G.). Tahsildar, Bilaamur (C.G.]. 4. Shri Shaukat Ali, S} o Shri Jiwaji Bhai, RESPONDENT8 R1 o Khéparganj, Bilasp C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226i22 OF TH§ ¢ONSTITUION G? IEDIJk FQR I$SUAECE OF $ $IIITA§LE WRIT, OR§EE QR DIRE‘JTION TO DO JVSTICE IN TI‘IE MATTER. k/ ‘ Q T l XH-Jcaz a 6 . E‘ mmmyffmw WW my! Wes; Wiggigam 200 ‘1‘ W v i 23.06.2004 I Shn Rajeev counsel for the pctitioners. ‘ l Shn Satlsh Shrwastata, Gupta, f Govt Adv. for rcspoudcnt No 1 to 3 , A Thls order shall govcjn the d1sposal of the petlhons Shri 'M D Sharma, ungel for réépondcnt No 4 Ei‘f’JQ; ‘ \ namely Wr1t Petxhou 0 140912004 between Sm£ Rajcshwari Chaturvcdi ° Vs Board of Revenuf g ChhattMgarh 8r. others fnother r1: Pctluon No.1410/2Gv4i Jiam l between Satish Chand Vg. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh & others, {Writ pgtition No 1412/2004 between Alok Kumar Vs‘ @earti 0f Revenue Chhattistgarh : & others; Writ petitiox} ‘NQ,E4i1/2004 bctWccn Smt. ‘Vccna Tlwari 55' a1otum Vs Board of Revenue J Chhattlsgarh 85 others an Wnt Petltmn No 1545/2004 g between Smt. Jyot1 Dmxt other; V?” Board Qf Revenue, Chhattisgarh 8E others, ince all these writ petitioxw L it rclate to thc samc issue and impugn thc ordcr-datm 0 23.03.2004 passcd b thc Board of Rcvcnu Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur th roforc, they are being disposee f, § 0 of by this common order. In all these writ pet tions return has already been g " filed on behalf of respond n1 No.4. g é The circumsténces 1 adj‘ng to filing of all these Writ petitions are-that respo den’x No.4 herein moved an ap?1icatv'on before the Te‘w‘sildam. Bfla‘spur ugdee Section r ,_ o ' o, ”e V é g XI—HL‘QI’. 250 of the Land Rcvcnuc Code,‘ 1954 requesting thcrcin that he is Bhuswami of the land bearing Khasra No.724/ 1 arca 0‘24 acres s Ltuatcd at Village Tifra {Bharti Nagar) and the possession of the petitioners herein over the said lahd are unauthori ed, therefore, the possessioa of the same may be given to him. The Tehsildar after considering the arguments f the parties vide order—dated 09.07.2001 rejected the agiplication by bakiing that the application is not maintain ble undex Section 250 of the Code. Being aggrieved by ihe order of the Tehsildar, respondent No.4 herein p fen-ed an appea1 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bil spur who also after hearing the parties dismissed t appeal vide order dated 09.03.2003 and held that in Order to seek relief under Section 250 of the Cod , it is necessary that the applicant who is seekingr lief must be the Bhuswami of the land. in dispute, the de arcation of the land must be established undisputedly nd it shall also be clear that on which date the applica t was dispossessed from the > land in dispute and since t e applicant could not be able . to prove all these facts, th refore, the applicant was not entitled for any relief and ppeal was dismissed. Again aggrieved by the order of S b Divisional Officer, Bilaspur respondent No‘4 had pref rred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue Chha tisgarh, Bilaspur, which was registered as Revenue App a1 N:o.5§‘7/s‘7of'2002w2f303. XI»HC‘22 mwm,m anéwuaa; @ The learned Board of Rewtnue after hearing the counse for the parties allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Tchsildar w’ h a direction to conduct an enquiry on the applicatio of respondent No.4 herein and he should be granted reli f as prayed in the application. I have heard the lea ed counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for e petitioners argued that the learned Board of Revenue hile remanding the case back given a direction to t‘Jve Tehsildar to aci‘ on the application filed by respo dent No.4 herein and relief as prayed in that application e granted to respondent No.4. Counsel further submit that this direction of the learned Board of Revenue s patently illegal and perverse. The Board of Revenue wa not authorized to give such a direction While remandin the case back contrary to the provisions contained in S ction 44 o'f the Code. 0n the other hand l arned counsel for respondent No.4 tried to support the rder of the Revenue Board. Having heard the 1c rned counsel for the partir and having regard to the acts and circumstances of t3 case, I am of the opinion that the direction/observant of the learned Board of evenue to the extent that to grant relief as prayed in the application is not correct instead thereof the learne Revenue Board ought to have directed the Tehsildar t conduct an enquiry on the application ’of respondent 0.4 heréin in accordance with 1, int&,%§\ ot. .. waww. EN l WW I§s§l$Lm W 200 ma 311%?! 3% Wm mam I m mmm r3 + WW trrwff fa?WK é; 31Wm XI~HC-22 mm ~AWuLA ($SL‘Qal" the law and. to’pass apprupriate order after conducting enquiry in accordance Wit law. Therefore, in view o the above all the above writ petitions are allowed an the order dated 23.03.2'304 passed by the Board of Re enue is modified to the extent that the Tehoikiar to onduct an enquiry on the application 0f responden No.4 and pass appropriate order in accordance with he law. At the time of passin of the order the Tehaildar will be required to decide folio ing points also:— . Whether on thr respondent NO Bhuswami of t1 had filed the ap' when he was d said Land. t date of application L4 herein was the 1e land for which he blication and the date ispossessed from the with the aforesaid directions and observations, these petitions are disposed off Certified copy as per rules. Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ' (new unenanor m.€..1.§%.‘.3.9( W 200 ma mm mm WW mmmm /b\ r mwn fee?We %mm