^J ^^/-z. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 76 12007 FS.B.l FIN THE MATTER OF PANCHAYAT1 PETITIONER :- \^R^mnath S/o Mahesh, aged about 58 .-'°c\^ years, by caste- Teli, Sarpanch Gram <vo'%y"' /'^ y Panchayat Ranpagula, Permanent resident of village- Ranpagula, at present teraporary resident of village Bhainjnar Police Station 85 Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh [C.G.]. ^. ^ ^v- ^' 'y" ,^" J^SPONDENTS ^} ^ ^- 6] 7> VERSUS Siyaram S/o Naresh Sahu, aged 44 years, Gokul S/o Manbodh, aged 55 years. Radhika wife of Bhokodolo. Makaram S/o Munu Sahu, All are resident of village Ranpagula P.S. & Tahsil Sarangarh/District Raigarh [C.G.]. Hathi Ram S/o Manglu, aged 40 years, R/o village Bhainjnar, P.S. 8& Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh [C.G.]. Kanila Bai wife of Santosh, aged 37 years R/o village Ranpagula P.S. §5 Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh [C.G.]. The Director, Panchayat and Social Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 8] TheCollector, Raigarh [C.G.]. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGM COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (O No. 76 of2007 PetitioD.er Raxsiaath Versus Respondeats Siyaram aod ofhera 8B: Honlale Mr. Justice Sutteh K. AgnfliQtri, J Shn M, K, Bhaduri, Advocato for fhc pctitioiicr. Shri Sumit Verma, Psmel LaBwyer for tiie respondents No. 7 & 8, ORDER (Passed on this 13th day ofFehniaiy, 2007) 1. The petitioner has fiiled this petition uiider Articte 227 offhe Constitutton of India, inipugning fhe oider dated 20.9.2006 (Annexure P/3), passed by fhe Dipector^ P&acfaayaty Chhatdsgarh, Raipur in Revenue Appeal No. 87/A-89/05- 06, wherciii fhe revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on fhe ground fhat fhe main dispute m still pending consideration before fhe Collector. 2. On rcading the oider shects (Annexure P/l and P/2) it ap^ars fhat the CoUector has rcquisitfoned fhe reports from fhe Tahsffldar as well as from fhe Porest OflScer. At fhis stage, it appears fhat the order pas^d by the Director is perfecffy vaUd and just. It does not caU for interierence. 3. In view of the above fhe petitk>n is dismis^d, summanty. The petitioner may raise the dispute after final ord^r is passed by fhe CoUector, ifso advised. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge Kiil