M “3 WRIT PETITION No, 42%? /2oo4 PETITIWER ’Ramchandra son of Shri Jagbar Singh, aged about 52 years, res— ident of Village AmbatolLSita— pur, Tahsel Sitapur, District Sarguj a (Chhattisgarh) RESPGNDENTS 1 . VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary VELK. S. Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh. Coilector aarguj‘a Ambikapur District Sarguja.(Chhattisgarh) 3. 4. Sub—Divisign a1 0fficer Sitapur Tahsil Sitapur District Sarguja. J Tahsildar Sitapur, Tahsil Sita— pur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Pétv4ari_ Circle No. 29 Tamil Sitapur, District Sargu‘ja(C.G.) Ramesh Kashyap son of shri SV.N. Kashyap‘reysident of Villave Sitaput, Tabsil Sitapur,District— Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) 5. a IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICgIURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W WRIT PhTITIvN UNDER HTICLE 226 227 OF THE CmSTITUTIm OF 1NDI§ FOR ISSUAN CE OF WRITZ WRITS DIRECTIONZ DIRECTEQV S, ORDtR ORDERS W. WW, gy‘TfIWw, LUPMQ4 fa— 2, 4 @K L460 my m (Kma) ammm WK Wm we? 15-12.2qo4 i Barm'k, counsel for the peiiu'oner. Shri Sanjay S. Agn awal, Govemment Advocate for the State. on and M.(W.)P.No.4589/2004 for Heani on admism interim relief. Contemion of petit bearing Kbasra No.664 and 66 by the order of Collector, Sur death, the petitioner, being so , has got all the lands mutamd 1n his &vour. High Court of Ma ya Pradesh, vide order dated 11-2‘ 1988, oniexed that, - 'Wmwa?§?s%m %&W&¥%¥? Shri Jagdish Singr ioner is that his hther 5area0356hecfarcs G uJa 1n the year 1980 and aiier h13\ “However, the peti ‘ ncr should not continue construction with diversion and nece Panchayat Authori Petitioner has nle‘ Divisional OEcer has not yet diversion and, therefore, in ac Section 172 of the Chhatu'sgarh Land Revenue Code, it will be Lvour of petitioner has been made, to construct the house on the suit mother question that Tahsildar has passed an order under Sectiionr24§ of the Chhattisgarhliand a t obtaining necessaly order for ssaiy sanction from Glam ties.” 'd this petition alleging that Sub- decided the application pending for cordance with deeming provision of presumed that diversion in fe‘ therefore, he may be permitted land. Petitioner has raised a nu » XI-HC~~78 “3a W16?!) awfrm7 $ w\V_.Me4z{g O4 WWmW ENG WT EVE (Efaa’w) x , E Revenue Code alleging some o his land as Government land, and by that Older dated 15-7-2004, he wants to dispossess him. Third contendon f the petitioner is that respondent No.6 has encmached upon sonic of his land, therefom, respondent No.6 be dilected to remove the encroachment. I For invoking the deeming provision of Sew 172 of k the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, it was necesgagy kkE\ petin'oner to call the atteniion of Sub-Divisional Wei- by i communication, the omission of not passing any order on the application pending'with him for diversion. Peu'n'oner has not med any such written communication befom "Sub—Divisional O$cer, therefote, he cannot take the shelter of the deeming provision. If Iespondent No.6 has encroach remedy lies in Civil Court w an'ording both the pardes p emmmme $ .l am 62W 31m W . ,m ed upon the land of petitioner, the here the issue can be settled by mper ‘oppoxtum‘ty of hearing. As regards order passed by Tahsildar under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, that order is appealable, and if petitioner wants to establish bps right as title holder, he can also establish his right in Civil mini in accordance with law. It is apparent tha to invoke the writ jurisdiction of thispQourt, there is no material available in favour of the petitioner, therefbm, this writ peiin'on Jingle tq Vbe dismissed and is accordingly dismissed s \ i / XLHC%78 wwmma @wima, W 1 m1}? . Lea 42.1? 4 Wmg g :k ZQG %%mw%$($%wmf) Hen 31W cgm‘ %%mw%$($%wmf) EWERH%H&@$ i _ WWW 5 ’Fgé {Fa-g1? i é? 3W am In the light of abov onicr, M.(W.)P.No.4589/2004 for inte ' relief and ibr I.A.No.8541/2004 urgent hearing/stand disposed of. ,1 " ‘ Sdl- V.K.Shrivastava Judge