s'.ngteBaich r^ IN THE HIGH GGURT OF GHHATTlSGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.v W.P.227NO.'%(64/Q/2009 PETITIONER ?vsytf.^ RESPONDENTS p^giptte"^-,^ ^. /;^ -..••"1^'^t-^ ^<^y~ l'^J"^ ^y'^^'"..-^ L.'**1 ---CharandaSt__S/o. Bahoran Das Panik§<)u"il^'-~Village-Bhanwtara, Tahsil-Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)- VERSUS :1.^' StateofChhattiSgarh,Through: the Secretary, Department of Reyenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3." The COllector, Janjgir-Champa, DistrictJanjgir-Champa(C.G.) 4. Sub-DiyiSional OfRcer, Pamgarh, DistrictJanjgir-Champa(C.G.) 5. << Aagardas, S/o. Jhangaldas Panika, R/o. Village- Bhanwatara, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa WRIT PETITION UNDERARTlCLE2270FtHlE GONSTITUflON OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR \ Sinale Beneh: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishr6 Writ Petnion (227) No,3S40/2009 Charandas 7" PETfTIONER Plaintiff RESPONDENTS Defendants Shri RaghvendraPradhan, counselforthepetitiMier. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. WRIT PETrriON UNDER ARTICI.£227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF tNNA ' • ••:::', ^'r- ORALORDER (09.03.2010) Challenge inthis petition uhder Arttele 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 20-11-^07 (Annexure P/1) thereby refusir^ to set-aside the appetiate order passed by the Collector, Janjgir-Champa on 14-11-^K» (Annexure P/2). By this order of Coilector, the order passed by the Sub Diwsional Officer (R) Pamgarh on OS-re-MOS (Annexure P/3) was set-aside and it was hekl that neither the petitioner nor r^pondent No.5 are entitted be declared as Bhoomiswami with respect to the subject iand bearing Khasra Nos. 129, 235, 260 and ^4 tota! area 9.98 Aeres at villesge Bhanwtara, Tahsil - Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa. Af. 1 ' : ,. (2) One Bahoran, the father of the petitioner was a Kotwar of the village and was in occupation of subject land as Muafi land atthattime from the hands of Malgujar. According to the petitioner the name of his father was recorded in the Jamabandi ofthe year 1938-^, therefore the order passed by the S.D.O. granting Bhoomiswami right in favour ^ KS' ^»«<*B>s~-...-;a. ^ .3.- of the petitioner shoiik} not have been interfered with by the Collectoi arri fhe Board of Revenue. (3) I have perused the record and eamea counsei (4) Tte Board of Revenue has recorded this finding fhat the pet'rtioner has fvA been appointed ss Kotwar at any Though the respondent No.5 was appointed as Kotwar was not in possesston of ttie iand on the date ot commer Land Revenue Code 1959, neither the petitiooer nor the No.5 can be declared as Bhoomi&wami with regard to Revenue (5) The land under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh iand 3, 1^9, Coltector as weil as the Board of Revenue has found ftat though the saki Bahoran acted as Kotwar till the year 1972-1973, the petitioner Charandas was never appointed as Kotwar and that he j&not in possesston of the iand also. As per revenue records Bahoran he!d the land as service land. (6) On perusa! of the impigned orders this Court finds that the passed by the Coilector and Board of Revenue have been passed after a^reciating the entire facts and the Saw applicabie thereon. The question regaiding conferTal of Bhoomiswami rights to Ms. • ! the Kotwar on a land whteh was held by the Kotwar as Maufi land ean be gone into only when sufricient material te furnished by the person ciaiming such rght wjth regard to the nature of !and held and mentioned in the Jamabandi, as to whether such property <ras spared fromthe being vested in the State atthetime ofabolition ofproprieteir's "^ ^ ryht under the jetevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Abolition liliiii! W'l ^ Proprietary Right^^Estates, lyiahals, Atienated Lands) Aet, 1950 and as to whether siwh land was directgd to be settied in the name of Kotwar who was servioig the prtynetw/Ma^ujar at that point of time, because if the tend was recorded as servtee land and was not saved to the Kotwar as his pereona! prqserty on account of personal services rendered to fhe ExMalgujar, the property cannot be declared to be the thoomiswami land oftfeEx Kotwar. (7) ln the of this Gourt the Coll«;toras well as the Board of Revenue has notcQmmitted any illegality by hokling that neither the respondent No.5 can be respecttottie subjeQtertd; Thewrit petition being devoid ofsubstance is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd//- ... prashantKumarMishra ^Judge !i"-\ B?: EB!1 B:®Aa ^ 'SaSsti^^SSSf^